A Translucent Mirror


By Pamela Kyle Crossley

University of California Press

Copyright © 2002 Pamela Kyle Crossley
All right reserved.

ISBN: 9780520234246

1
Trial by Identity

The Ming empire (13681644) was perpetually engaged in a struggle against various peoples along its northern borders. By the early seventeenth century, an elaborate set of ideas justified by allusion to ancient selected philosophical and historical texts was repeatedly invoked by the Ming court to legitimate itself in opposition to outsiders, and to justify both open warfare with and hostile border policies against unruly peoples of the north. In philosophical circles emerging materialism was often compatible with state rhetoric on the question of civilization and identity, so that issues of descent, environment, and immutable moral character combined both to make Chinese affiliations at the borders more rigid and to discredit the barbarians' political and economic organization. As a competitor with the Ming for the domination of the Liaodong region in particular, the Jianzhou Jurchen regime fostered an entirely different view of affiliation. Identity was subordination. Neither ancestors nor place of origin could override a sincere, unselfish wish to serve the Jianzhou ruler. These rival ideologies were in manifest conflict during the wars between the Ming and the Jin/Qing in the earlier seventeenth century. They also met in exquisitely precise debate over the fate of Tong Bunian and the history of the "lineage" with which he became associated.

In Ming official geography the region just outside the Great Wall, east of Shanhai Pass and north of western Korea, was Liaodong. By Qing times the Fengtian prefectural administration would subsume most of the area. But the name Liaoyang, which was also the name of a town within the district, remained common, and harked back to the administrative geography of the Jurchen Jin empire (11211234). Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century documents refer to the area inconsistently as Liaodong or Liaoyang. It lay



within a roughly semicircular network of barriers and guard stations that marked the Ming boundary in Northeast Asia. Directly north was the territory of the Haixi, who thrived at the interface of multiple economic and cultural spheres.1 Northeast and east of Liaodong was the vast territory called "Nurgan," where Jurchens with complex relationships to the Ming court in China and the Yi court in Korea dominated a rich trade in raw goods. "Liaodong" and "Nurgan" were not only geographical entities; they respectively marked political and cultural territories that before the Qing conquest of China were critical to definition of the rulership and its constituencies. After the conquest, the shadows of "Liaodong" and "Nurgan" would continue to vex Qing attempts to define the imperial lineage, its following, and the shape and style of its dominion.

A Discourse on Ancestry

The town of Fushun (Manchu Fusun*

, just inside the Ming military pale, was the primary licensed center for trade with Nurgan.2 In the early seventeenth century Tong Bunian, whose courtesy name (hao ) was Babai and whose literary style (zi ) was Guanlan, was registered at Fushun. His father, Tong Yangzhi, had been a Ming military officer posted to Kaiyuan in Liaodong. The year of Bunian's birth is not clear, but he received the Ming national examination degree (jinshi ) in 1616, and the average age of receiving the national degree in the late imperial period appears to have been about thirty-four. His success in the examinations suggests that his family was wealthy enough to raise him to be exclusively devoted to his studies. They also had the means to support him during his travels to Shenyang,

For background see Rossabi, The Jurchens in the Y|an and Ming; Robert Lee, The Manchurian Frontier in Ch'ing History.

Seventeenth-century Ming gazetteers identify Nurgan as the territories occupied by the Haixi, Jianzhou, and "wild" Jurchens (the latter group subsuming the Nivkhs, Ulch, Golds, Nanni, Evenks, Orochons, Giliaks, and other groups of Northeastern Asia), which indicates undelimited territories northeast of Liaodong and north of Korea. The Wanli period (15881620) writer Ma Wensheng, however, considered Nurgan to be a rather discrete area one month's travel north of the Songari River, in Heilongjiang ("Fu'an Dong Yi kao," 2). This is in accord with the earlier specification of Nurgan as the immediate vicinity of the Yongning temple. The site was by the fifteenth century inhabited by Giliaks but had a century earlier been a penal colony established under the Yuan empire. See Grupper, "The Manchu Imperial Cult," 37. Generalization of the name may be been connected with the patenting of a Ming "garrison" (see below) with the Nurgan name and the tendency of such garrisons to mutate in size and location.



where he would have had to take the provincial degree (juren ), and subsequently the Ming capital (then Peking), where he would have had to stay for weeks, or more likely months, to complete the sittings leading ultimately to the palace examinations (dianke ). After succeeding in the examination, Bunian returned to Fushun briefly to await his first appointment. He married a woman of another Fushun family, surnamed Chen, and may have started planning his house in the town of Liaoyang, a grander and more central locality than Fushun. In 1618 his assignment came, and the next year he took up duties first as magistrate of Nanpi, Zhili, and then as the magistrate of Hejian, Zhili, near Peking. So far as is known, these successive, prestigious posts occasioned Bunian's only prolonged residence outside of Liaodong. It may have been during the period of his magistracy in Zhili that his only son, Tong Guoqi, was born at the house in Liaoyang.

In 1621 Tong Bunian was returned to his native terrain, with critical and dangerous responsibilities. He was called to serve under Xiong Tingbi (15691625),3 the Ming military intendant of Liaodong. In 1618 warfare had broken out in Liaodong between the Ming and the Jianzhou Jurchens. The Jianzhou chieftain Nurgaci had announced himself khan and formed a regime announcing itself as "Jin," the name of the former Jurchen empire in the region four hundred years before. Now, Nurgaci had captured Fushun. The town's entire population, including many of the collateral members of Bunian's lineage, had been taken into the Nurgan territories.4

Xiong Tingbi hoped that the recruitment of Tong Bunian would help break the downward spiral of Ming defenses in Liaodong. Xiong had been stationed in Liaodong on and off since 1608. Early in his exposure to the region he had expressed alarm at the amassing of wealth and armaments by the Jianzhou. Local Jurchen groups had all federated themselves to some degree with the Ming court. They entered into the schedule of visits to Peking to make ritual obeisance to the Ming emperor and in return were given titles, stipends, and trading rights across the Ming border. Ming records give the arrangement the easily discerned fiction of a "garrison" (weisuo ) system and identify the federationswhich were in fact liable to change their location in accord with certain political, economic, or belligerent eventsas military establishments, with their headmen recorded as officials.5 A certain amount of abuse of the system was to be expected from

ECCP, 308.

Qing shilu, "Taizu wuhuangdi" 1:12.

See Yang Yang et al., "Mingdai liuren zai Dongbei." On Jurchen commerce with Liaodong see also Serruys, Sino-J|rched Relations in the Yung-lo Period; Ross-abi, The Jurchens in the Yuan and Ming; Deng Shaohan, "Shilun Ming yu Hou Jin zhanzheng de yuanyin ji qi xingzhi"; and Yang Yulian, "Mingdai houqi Liaodong mashi yu Nuzhen zu de xingqi."



the Jurchen. Xiong felt that the political scales had tilted too far in favor of local magnates, including but not limited to leaders of Jurchen groups in the Liaodong vicinity. He also noted the ways in which the Jurchens were amassing agricultural laborers for themselveslargely by kidnapping farmers living in border regions. Xiong attempted to impress upon the court that loyalties among the prisoners might be far more flexible than Ming officials assumed:

Formerly the bandits were poor and hungry, and in winter and spring, when the grass was dry, their horses were as thin as sticks, and therefore we had some respite in those seasons. Recently, however, their prisoners have built shelters to live in. A great chieftain may have several thousand prisoners and imigris; a small one, a thousand. They make the laborers cultivate the land, and hand over grain and fodder, so that both men and horses are fed, and they can move against us at any time. Corrupt Ming border officials force the hungry populace into the vanguard of their armies so that anger and resentment have become extreme: by force of circumstances these oppressed farmers leave us and join the rebels. Once I overheard residents of the borders say, "We used to be afraid that the Jurchens would kill us." But now I hear them say, "The Jurchens build houses to let us live in; they provide clothes and food to support us; from the yearly harvest they take only a sack of millet and a few bales of hay, and there are no other taxes to annoy us; and besides, among the prisoners previously captured we have relatives and friends who will look after us. Rather than die of hunger and starvation and becoming empty-bellied wraiths, or die by the sword and become headless ghosts, we would rather throw in our lot with the Jurchens. This way we may be able to save our lives." These are ominous words coming up in conversation and recently more often than before.6

In this one brief passage Xiong not only encapsulated a fundamental aspect of Liaodong society but also foreshadowed the struggle for allegiance in which the Ming and Jin would be fiercely engulfed.

Xiong's stridency then had struck his court audience as unreasonable, and he was extracted from his post to serve as an education inspector in Nanjing. But the capture of Fushun by Nurgaci in 1618 and a series of defeats visited upon Ming commanders in its aftermath had brought forth, in

Adapted from Serruys, "Two Remarkable Women in Mongolia," in The Mongols and Ming China, 8:24445. See also his citations to the work of Wada Sei.



some quarters, positive comment regarding Xiong Tingbi's earlier performance in Liaodong. His political enemies responded aggressively to the new favor of Xiong. They put him on the line in Liaodong, tasking him to correct what a decade of inaction had spawned.7 Xiong was aggressive in pursuit of his duties, and equally aggressive in his denunciation of the court party. By 1621 he was demoted once more from his command. Xiong was, in effect, sharing responsibility with the Liaodong military governor, Wang Huazhen (d. 1632),8 whom he deemed a fool and a liar, when Tong Bunian reported to his native region for service. Nurgaci's forces were increasing exponentially and already controlled the former Ming provincial capital at Shenyang. Failure now to suppress the Jin would lead to indictment, torture, imprisonment, and very likely death for Xiong Tingbi. But he found the Liaodong population indifferent to the complexities of Peking factional quarrels. Nor were they galvanizing themselves in support of the Ming effort against Nurgaci. Xiong gambled on bringing Tong Bunian into the upper rungs of the military effort in Liaodongspecifically as the "intendant" (jianshi ) of the regional defense force, the Laijian Armyas a catalyst for the local spirit, using Bunian's Liaodong associations and the prestige of the Tong lineage in Fushun to garner support in the region for the Ming cause.9 Failure would mean that Liaodong would fall to the control of the Jianzhou, and, of more immediate concern, Xiong Tingbi would be headed for the execution yard.

However, what Xiong saw as the hope of Tong Bunian was regarded by others as a threat. It was suspected by some at the Ming court that the Laijian intendant was not promoted merely because he was a native of Liaodong, but because he was actually a Jurchen. "Someone," memorialized Liu Zongzhou (15781645) at the time of Bunian's appointment, "who is one of a subject people and who is not personally loyal to us has nevertheless been promoted from magistrate to military intendant. It is Tong Bunian."10 Xiong Tingbi managed to ward off Bunian's detractors until March 1622, when the Ming forces suffered their disastrous defeat at Guangning. The rout had been a brilliant display of regionalist polemicizing on the part of Nurgaci and his representatives, who had persuaded mer-

See also Woodruff, "Foreign Policy and Frontier Affairs along the Northeastern Frontier of the Ming Dynasty."

ECCP, 823.

Ming shi 241.9b. ECCP, 792. Mou Ranxun, "Mingmo xiyang dapao you Ming ru hou Jin kaolue," part 2, in Mingbao yuekan (October 1982): 89, quotes remarks by Zhang Haoming from Liangchao congxin lu, juan 9, Tianqi 6:10.

Mou, "Mingmo xiyang dapao you Ming ru hou Jin kaolue," 89.



cenaries, mostly Mongols, defending the town for the Ming to desert their posts. Indeed the Ming troops, in mass, had streamed through Shanhai Pass and back inside the Great Wall. Xiong Tingbi's small force had mutinied and withdrawn in the wake of the collapse of Guangning; he and Tong Bunian had had no choice but to follow. On reaching the inner side of the Great Wall at Shanhai Pass, Xiong, Wang, and Tong were arrested by Ming officers and remanded to Peking for trial. Xiong and Wang were tried for desertion. Death verdicts were swift, but execution was delayed by the intervention of their political allies. Xiong Tingbi was decapitated on September 27, 1625. His head was piked over a city gate until 1629, when his eldest son was allowed to bury it and the court granted Xiong the posthumous title of Xiangmin ("an end to grieving").11 Wang Huazhen was executed in 1632.

Tong Bunian was tried separately from but simultaneously with Xiong and Wang in 1622. Unlike Xiong and Wang, Tong was charged not with desertion but with sedition. In April 1622 one Du Xu, a convicted traitor, claimed in his confession that Bunian had secretly communicated with Li Yongfang, a former Ming commander in Fushun who was now in the service of Nurgaci.12 An intense investigation that at one point caused the torturing to death of two witnesses failed to turn up any evidence that Bunian had aided the enemy, and for three years he remained in prison while his case was debated. The prosecutors acknowledged that criminal acts had not been proved. But proof was irrelevant; the acts could have occurred without leaving any evidence. They further acknowledged that it was perfectly possible that Bunian had never yet communicated with the enemy. But the act was irrelevant, too, for Tong Bunian could be demonstrated to have treason in his ancestry, and innocence was no defense. His kinsmen, Tong Yangxing (d. 1632) and Tong Yangzhen (d. 1621), had gone over to Nurgaci's side and were taking the lead in the supply and command of enemy artillery units. Zhang Haoming, secretary of the Board of War, wrote, "Yesterday I discovered some information about Tong Yangzhen, to the effect that Tong Bunian's great-grandfather was the grandfather of Tong Yangzhen. How can there be any doubt that the traitor Tong Yangxing is

This was the same posthumous name given in 1489 to Li Bing, who perished in similar circumstances: Li had been dispatched to Liaodong to suppress the uprising of Cungsan*

(son of Nurgaci's ancestor Mvngke Tem|r), as a punishment for having criticized the court. See Goodrich and Fang, Dictionary of Ming Biography (hereafter DMB ), 495; also the account in KF 1:9b.

Mou, "Mingmo xiyang dapao you Ming ru hou Jin kaolue," 89. For Li Yongfang see ECCP, 499. For Nurgaci's communications with Li see Chapters 3 and 4.



also a close relative [of Tong Bunian]?"13 Gu Dazhang (15761625), who conducted the investigation into the charges of Tong Bunian's communication with the enemy, did not discover any proof of guilt; he nevertheless recommended banishment on the basis of the suspect's family connections.14 Qian Qianyi (15821664) reasoned, "First of all, [Tong Bunian] is of the same lineage as Tong Yangzhen, and should therefore be treated identically under the law. It is not necessary to wait for him to commit treason. Second, he has the same surname as the Jianzhou and is not merely Yangzhen's kinsman. Yang Dongming [15481624] has submitted a memorial saying Bunian is in fact a Jianzhou and each year worships at the tomb of the Jin emperor Shizong."15

In prison Bunian wrote his testament of innocence, "Record of Prisoned Rage" (Yufen lu ), in which he averred his loyalty to the Ming and denied the significance of the association of the Tong surname with Nurgan: "Tong is such a common surname," he argued, "that you cannot claim that all who use it are related." He described the centuries of loyal service given the Ming by his lineage. His cousins who had recently gone over to the Jurchen camp, he showed, only shared an ancestor with him four generations in the past. "In the twenty garrisons of Liaodong, no fewer than twenty-five families are surnamed Tong. They are not all one lineage. There is a Tong family [in China] in Northern Zhili, also, and in Shandong, and in the Yangzi Delta region. With generations of military and civil achievements before me, why is suspicion directed only at me? It has all been done on the basis of flimsy reports, saying that the children and wives of Tong Yangxing and Li Yongfang are all called [by the status of] sons-in-law [of Nurgaci], that's all there is to it."16 Accepting the persuasiveness of genealogical affiliation, Tong provided his own narrativeto be discussed belowof ancestral

Mou, "Mingmo xiyang dapao you Ming ru hou Jin kaolue," 89.

Ming shi , 241, as above. For more on the tension between Gu and Xiong, see Chen Ding, Donglin liezhuan 3:18a23b.

Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan xingshi kao , 49. Zhu's text originally read, "Li Dongming has submitted a memorial. . . ." I have assumed Li Dongming to be a mistake for Yang Dongming. The charge of being a Jurchen is repeated in very similar words in the deposition of Gu Dazhang. The Jurchen Jin emperor Shizong (r. 116189) was entombed at Fangshan, now part of greater Peking. Meng Sen, in his "Jianwen xunguo shi kao" (1936, published in Ming Qing shilun zhu jikan , 1961), 2, relates a very affecting description of the ruins there. The potency of this charge can perhaps be conveyed by the fact that in 1629, when he made his first invasion of the Peking environs, Hung Taiji did indeed perform a prostration before Shizong's tomb. See Chapter 4.

Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan , 49, quoting the Yufen lu , "Appendix 1." On the ennoblement of new recruits as efu (royal sons-in-law) see Chapter 3 and 4.



identity with the Ming. He asserted that the report of his prostration before the tombs of the Jin ancestors was a calumny. He was loyal.

These arguments were without effect. In April 1625 Bunian was ordered to hang himself in prison.17 His wife Chen-shi left Liaodong to settle with her relatives in Zhejiang province and took her young son, Guoqi, along.

The trial of Tong Bunian took place at the friction point between two volatile spheres in late Ming China: dangerously deteriorating political management of the northern borders and increasingly deadly political rivalries at court. The most proximate political context was what is often referred to as the "persecution" of the Donglin faction by the eunuchs who established themselves close to the emperor in the late Wanli period (roughly the second decade of the seventeenth century). The Donglin group was one of several reform parties that began among the provincial literati. Most were openly critical of the scholars who had aligned themselves with the thought of Wang Yangming (14721529). They denounced Wang's philosophy for having promoted a kind of crypto-Buddhism among aspiring bureaucrats, advisors, and local leaders, who in this view became so detached from practical matters that the instruments of government had been allowed to fall into ruin.18 Amid the crumbling political structure, eunuchs had gained roaming rights and now corrupted the government with their influence over the emperor and their control of policy. The reform groupsincluding the Donglincommitted themselves to purging their own ranks of the idealism and distraction of the Wang Yangming influence and to dislodging the corrupt elements from the Ming imperial government. They pursued these ends through the discussion and instruction in their affiliated academies, while working their high political connections to gain the ear of the emperor and a foothold for themselves at court. They had some success in this, particularly after 1620. The reformists were as canny and ruthless in the pursuit of their political goals as were their enemies, and the result was that the 1620s was a period of especially intense political intrigue in Peking. The timing of the alterations in power balances was critical to the fates of Xiong Tingbi and Tong Bunian, in particular. Xiong's task in defending Liaodong was complicated by the fact that he had, through his connections with the Donglin, incurred the wrath of court officials. In the view of the Donglin sympathizers, and probably of Xiong himself, the court party led by Feng Quan (15951672) were using the Liaodong crisis as a

[Ming ] Xizong shilu 12:21:24.

Onogawa credits reform groups with beginning the critical studies of the Qing period. See Shimmatsu seiji shiso kenkyu*

, 99101.



political purgative against the Donglin supporters.19 Feng, who with his father had been cashiered in 1619 for miscarriage of their duties in the defense of Liaodong, assiduously worked to curry favor with the eunuch Wei Zhongxian (15681627) and to recover some of his standing at court. The military reverses that directly caused the arrests of Xiong and Tong coincided with a fall from power of prominent Donglin political leaders, leaving the two of them at the mercy of the Wei Zhongxian factionand particularly of Feng Quan, who made himself the leading prosecutor of Xiong Tingbi.

Donglin sympathizers attempted to save Xiong but distanced themselves from Tong Bunian (perhaps supposing that by directing blame at Tong, Xiong might be reprieved). Tong's accusers Qian Qianyi and Gu Dazhang, for instance, were both prominent Donglin activists, and Gu was ultimately martyred for his beliefs. Whatever the "facts" of Tong's case, his death in prison was most likely a product of the confluence of the Donglin's enemies targeting the Liaodong military command and the Donglin activists looking for sacrificial victims to save their more prominent and more familiar colleagues. But this does not fully explain the choice of Tong for this role. Both factions were evidently attracted by the ease with which Tong could be implicated in and ultimately convicted of sedition, despite a complete lack of evidence that he had committed any seditious act. He became a magnet for these accusations because the Donglin reformers, quite as much as the Wei Zhongxian faction, were deeply immersed in a cosmological discourse that virtually compelled the conclusion that Tong was by nature treasonous (or would inevitably become treasonous). The charges against Tong were emphatically not the sort that might be associated with notions of collective responsibility as they are frequently met in Chinese law; he was not punished for the sins of his relatives or putative relatives, but was ascribed an affective profilecomplete with an ineluctably seditious futureon the basis of evidence relating to his ancestry. Neither Tong Bunian himself nor any of his accusers dissented from the assumption that

ECCP , 24041. Feng must have been good at pleasing other sponsors, too, for he escaped the general purge of the Wei faction that followed the Wanli's emperor's death. When the Qing invasion force under Dorgon reached Peking in 1644, Feng rushed to join the new regime and was rewarded with posts both in the Hongwen yuan and the Board of Appointments (libu ). Though Feng was good at avoiding political pitfalls in his lifetime, he could not avoid the judgment of the Qianlong emperor's history. As noted below (Chapters 2 and 5), he was condemned in the "Biographies of Twice-Serving Ministers" and post-posthumously stripped of his posthumous honor.



genealogy determined sympathy; Tong merely disputed the interpretation of his own genealogy. The unanimity of the disputants on this point is remarkable when it is remembered that the late Ming period knew a variety of discourses of descent, morality, and identity. There is in fact in Chinese writing of the late sixteenth and earlier seventeenth centuries a wide variety of assertions and inferences relating to the interplay of culture, geography, economics, and politics among peoples in all parts of the empire and at its borders.20 But among court-oriented literati (including Tong Bunian), and particularly those officials with no ambitions as philosophers of great originality, those philosophical elements that had a happy congruence to the rhetoric of Ming emperorship predominated.

Establishing the moral invalidity of the Yuan empire (12801368) of the Mongols in China and the concomitant legitimating of the Ming had been the first agendum of those, like Song Lian and Fang Xiaoru, who were prominent in the formation of the new empire's political rhetoric.21 The Ming court was eager to nurture and guide this strain of thought and expression, whose forceful combination of righteous indignation against the political pretensions of non-Chinese peoples, rather loose theory of kinship for all Chinese, and characterization of the Ming emperorship as the avatar of Chinese virtue imbued court speech with new vigor. The moral realm of the Ming emperor extended equally to Chinese who left the immediate geographical confines of the Ming empire; this was vividly demonstrated when Zheng He's marines virtually obliterated a community of ancestral Chinese on Sumatra who refused to acknowledge submission to the Yongle emperor in 1407. As late as the early 1620s, when powerful leaders in Mongolia and the Northeast were openly defying Ming pretentions to rule their

Examples include Xiao Daheng, Mao Ruizheng, Zheng Xiao, Ye Xianggao (15621627), and Ma Wensheng, who despite great differences in political outlook were among those writers of the time (most of whom had served as officials in some capacity) who wrote closely descriptive accounts of life in the border territories and gave informed analyses of political organizations, where they were to be found. Of the writers in this vein, Xiao Daheng is best known; he was repeatedly quoted by Bawden (Modern History of Mongolia ), is very extensively quoted and analyzed by Serruys ("Pei-lou Fong-sou"), and his best-known work, Beilu fengsu , is available in several reprints (perhaps most accessible the Guangwen shuju facsimile, Taipei, 1972). As will be noted in the Postscript, these writers were generally neglected in favor of Wang and other philosophers of difference in the nineteenth-century revival of "nationalist" or "loyalist" writers of the seventeenth century.

Song Lian and Fang Xiaoru (Hou zhengtong lun ). Fang, it should be noted, opposed employment of centralizing instruments that in his time were firmly associated with "Legalism" and was as critical of the authoritarian Wang Mang as he was of the Mongols. See also Fincher, "China as a Race, Culture, and Nation."



areas, the need was still felt to formulate and propagate arguments for Ming military domination of the borders. Connected to this was the necessity to construe Chinese identity in genealogical (that is, stable) terms, since Chinese settlement of the border areas was fundamental to justification of considering border areas part of the Chinese world. That world at the death of the Wanli emperor in 1620 was one in which the struggle for identity and sovereignty was rhetorically strenuous and physically perilous.

In this thinking there is a template of ethnological theory that connected cultural, historical, and moral identity in a kind of magic circle. The historical record could be used to determine the ancestors of any contemporary people, and on the basis of that their moral character in the present could be assessed. These premises were used to argue not only the permanence of Chinese association but also its obverse: despite imitation of Chinese imperial dress and ritual, despite any degree of apparent outward transformation, the inward quality of barbarians cannot change. Ancestry, in Ming ideology, was identity; attempts to obscure this equation were stratagems of illegitimate barbarian dynasties, who hoped to recruit Chinese traitors into their regimes. Many writers of the period could be invoked to capture this influential complex of ideas, but it is perhaps most illuminating to cite Wang Fuzhi (161992), to whom this study will return in Chapter 5. Wang, who was not born until the very late Ming and was still a young man at the time of the Qing conquest of north China, was heir to two generations of scholars developing what is often called the "materialist" critique, which repudiated the "idealism" of Wang Yangming and his followers. The slight anachronism of citing Wang in this context appears justified for the sake of clarity; Wang, after all, thought that philosophy can only be understood in retrospect: "At the time one speaks, no one understands one. In setting forth what I have understood, I am also trying to advise future generations."22

Wang accepted the axiom that the fundamental difference between civilized people and barbaric people is moral. This came down to a consistent code of evidence: Civilized people are those who respect their elders and their dead ancestors; who read and write; who record history and take lessons from it; who use orderly methods of communication (whether in script, in ritual, or in music) to negotiate relationships among people, as well as between people and Heaven; who form states and allow themselves to be governed by law and reason (a criterion that would become central to the argument of the Yongzheng emperor of the Qing in the early eighteenth

McMorran, The Passionate Realist , 162, from Huangshu houxu 1b.



century). Barbaric people are those who are controlled by greed and lust; who take no notice of the past; who do not know or respect ancestors (and thus marry chaotically among the lineages and the generations) or divine forces; who cannot maintain stable states and do not care for law. The immediate sources of these differences, Wang explained, were environmental: Civilized peoplethe people of the "central country" (zhongguo ), inheritors of the traditions of the Hua and Xiawere born in one place (China), and were shaped by its moderate temperatures, its fertile lands, abundant waters and edifying scenery. Barbaric peoples were from elsewhereparched or steamy or frigid or scrabbly lands where the patterned life necessary to the development of agriculture, orderly families, literature, philosophy, and political arts was limited or impossible. Wang had also a more cosmological explanation, to which we will return in a later chapter.

Wang, like many seventeenth-century thinkers, used a broad genealogical schema to undergird his taxonomy of moral identities: "When the families of things became clearly defined and the lines of demarcation among them were fixed, each was established in its own position and all living things were contained within their own protective barriers. . . . Conflicts could thus be avoided."23 As he commented in his "Writings Bound for the Fire" (Huang shu ), material law (which Wang hoped would gain ascendancy over the subjective remnants of the influence of "idealistic" philosophy) required that demarcations based upon a learned perception of differences between circumstantial similarities and essential differences be observed, with humans distinguished from objects, and Chinese distinguished from barbarians. Wang explicitly denied that superficial biological dissimilarities were markers of identity. Man had in common with beasts his composition by yin and yang elements, also his necessity to eat and breathe; but man was not an animal. It was not such superficial physical similarities between Chinese and barbarians that were definitive, but their irreducible moral differences.24 The state that neglects enforcement of these barriers violates natural principle (tianwei ) and allows chaos, moral disorder, and injustice to reign. Though the state, Wang admitted, plays a conscious role in the

From Du tongjian lun . There is a concise introduction to Wang's thought on the relationship between civilization and barbarism, with quotations and citations to critical original passages, in Ji, Wang Chuanshan xueshu luncong , 14854. See also McMorran, "Wang Fu-chih and His Political Thought"; Wiens, "Anti-Manchu Thought during the Ch'ing"; Black, Man and Nature in the Thought of Wang Fu-chih .

Huang shu 24 (juan ).



ability of its agents to perceive these differences and to maintain boundaries, the differences themselves might be called "material" and inherent.

This insistence on a material basis for distinct cultural and moral identities may suggest that Wang considered these differences to be essential, and immune to change by time or circumstance. Here a qualification is in order.25 Wang and others assumed the phenomenal and noumenal worlds to be of one continuous moral substance. Civilization was morality, but so was illness, hunger, or the tendency of things to fall downward when released. Additionally, these philosophers were working within the context of a reaction against late Ming philosophical fashion, which was alleged to have weakened the political culture by encouraging intellectuals to focus excessively upon their own inner lives and perceptions to the neglect of the factual investigation of history, economics, linguistics, medicine, and in some cases mathematics. For these new critics, the phenomenal world was comprehensive, and metaphysics was only a species of moral knowledge equally gained through inquiries into history and the present.

Frequently Wang Fuzhi and others claimed the authority of the "Spring and Autumn Annals" (Chunqiu ) or "Writings of Zuo" (Zuo zhuan ) for their discussion of boundaries between barbarians and Chinese. But the vocabulary of the classical texts, in which social or cultural groups were delineated by terms of classification claiming no inherited, immutable character (lei, chun ) had been displaced by a new vocabulary of fictive kinship (zu, lun ). The shift was important because for the first time it introduced a causality of distinctions. Early formulations had depended upon a description of cultural differences to mark lines between peoples.26 Such differences produced secondary differences in thought and feeling, but no theory was offered to explain how differences of circumstance were caused. The new vocabulary, however, suggested that inherent differences descended from one generation to the nextand from one people to its heirswith-

Notwithstanding Dikvtter's admonition: "The delusive myth of a Chinese antiquity that abandoned racial standards in favour of a concept of cultural universalism in which all barbarians could ultimately participate has understandably attracted some modern scholars . . ." (The Discourse of Race in Modern China , 3). It is indeed desirable that modern scholars abjure an attraction of their own to this "myth" but not that they ignore the fact that it is in some texts and exercised its own attraction over certain empires and their scholastic supporters.

There is the famous exchange in Zuo zhuan 14, for instance, in which a leader of the Qiang group of the Rong people sums up his differences from the Chinese (Hua) as differences of food, dress, customs of exchange, and language.



out being immediately affected by environment.27 Biology, food, and climate having produced the distinctions between Chinese and barbarian, Wang reasoned, the distinctions cannot be abrogated, any more than a family tree can be negotiated. This association of genealogy with identity became nearly unexceptional in Ming literati circles of the early seventeenth century. In the prosecution of Tong Bunian, no individual ever dissented from this basic principle, including Tong Bunian himself, who consistently and energetically pursued his defense by writing and annotating an exhaustive genealogy.

The history of Fushun, Tong's ancestral town, was itself a monument to the hopelessness of saving Tong Bunian by arguing an impeccable Chinese ancestry for him. The settlement has previously been described as typical of the "transfrontier" environment that communicated Chinese cultural and political influence to Northeast Asia in Ming times. This characterization of Fushun was fundamental to Tong Bunian's defense, was suggested by "Record of Prisoned Rage," was perpetuated by his son Tong Guoqi in the later seventeenth century, and would become of ideological significance to the eighteenth-century court. However, contemporary documentation (mostly from Ming government records, but also some private histories) suggests another cultural history for Fushun, one perilous to Tong Bunian: Fushun was among the westernmost and southernmost of urban settlements in Liaodong that Jurchen immigration had helped create. The Qing court would later acknowledge Fushun as a major source of the regime's organizational and ideological resources; unstated in the imperial literature is the fact that Fushun was the key to the fortune amassed by Nurgaci's ancestors, upon which his own career was built.

During the early seventeenth century Fushun was one of the smaller of a network of Ming garrisons and fortifications in eastern Liaodong that marked the western boundaries of the Jurchen territories. Unlike its sister towns to the north and westKaiyuan (Manchu Keyen) and Tieling (Manchu Cilin)Fushun had not been a town before the coming of the garrison.28 Under the Ming, Fushun's livelihood was exclusively and inex-

See also Hsiung, "Shiqi shiji Zhongguo zhengzhi sixiang zhong fei chuantong chengfen de fenxi," 1415; 3031.

The Fushun environs have been a fruitful archaeological resource for the study of ancient and medieval Northeastern cultures. See Ikeuchi Hiroshi, Man Son shi kenkyu*

(1949), 16176, and Miyake Shunjo, Tohoku Ajia kokugaku no kenkyu (1949): 40369 passim. It shared with the rest of the region a history of settlement by the Puyo*

, a Tungusic people who inhabited present-day Liaoning and Jilin sometime in the late centuries BCE, and later control by the Parhae (Bohai), who had oc-cupied the area from the eighth to the tenth centuries and were, like the Jurchens, descendants of the Mohe. The Jurchen Jin empire had made the area north and east of the site of Fushun the heart of its administration.



tricably bound to trading and defense. As Kaiyuan to the north was the portal of Liaodong trade with Haixi,29 and Guangshun Gate with Hada, Fushun was the point of contact with Jianzhou to the east; all were consequently targets for Jurchen settlement, and Liaodong was dotted with Jurchen communities. The exact date of the founding of Fushun is unclear, but its purpose was to house the soldiers who managed the Fushun Gate (Fushun guan), the "Gate of Firm Pacification," the physical interface with Jianzhou. The town was originally a camp (zuo ) under the jurisdiction of the Liaodong Central Garrison.30 Its walls were reported to have been about one mile (three li ) in circumference, and just outside the town walls lay the camp of the chiliarch (qianhu ), the military granaries, and the drill field.31 Also outside the city walls were the markets, which were filled with the pearls, ginseng, pelts, pine seeds, falcons, dogs, and other precious items brought from the Jurchen territories to be exchanged for the silk, cash, or finished goods offered by the residents of Fushun. After 1464 Fushun became an official horse market.32 It also received semiprocessed goods; the Jianzhou had invented a new way of curing ginseng (orhoda ),33 and the Hoifa of northern Liaodong and Jilin had taken their name from their process of dyeing cloth.34 The chiefs of the federations, who enjoyed a large portion of the wealth generated by Jurchen trade and industries, were in the habit of stopping in the towns of Fushun, Tieling, Kaiyuan, Guangshun, and elsewhere to spend their money. Fushun was frequently visited by the Jianzhou band led by Giocangga of the Jianzhou (Nurgaci's grandfather) in the 1570s and very early 1580s. Records preserve notice of Nurgaci's own visit to Fushun in the company of his grandfather as early as 1578,35 and the settle-

For discussion and citations from Ming shilu on the Haixi and Kaiyuan, see Zhu Chengru, "Qing ru guan qian hou Liao Shen diqu de Man (Nuzhen) Han renkou jiaoliu," 7475.

Liaodong zhi 2:4b.

Liaodong zhi 2:15b.

Yang Yulian, "Mingdai houqi de Liaodong mashi yu Nuzhenzu de xingqi," 29.

Jurchen or-ho da (Jin, Nuzhen wen cidian , 154, meaning "root of the grass").

Hoifan , "A dye made from the leaves and stems of the wild tea plant wence moo ," verb infinitive hoifalambi , "to dye black with a concoction of the leaves and stems" of the same plant (Norman, A Concise Manchu-English Lexicon , 13334, from Qingwen Zonghui ).

Yang Yulian, "Mingdai houqi de Liaodong mashi," 30, cites a Fushun tax document of 1578. Nurgaci was at this time nineteen or twenty years old and hadjust concluded his first marriage, to Hahana Jacin, of the Tunggiya lineage of Jilin. See Chapter 3.



ments of the Giocangga lineage were located in an area directly accessible to Fushun by river travel.

Fourteenth-century Jurchen traders visited the Liaodong towns continually and frequently settled there; others were part of the "garrison" arrangement in Liaodong who had been permitted (many were actually enticed) to defend some of the towns, either under Chinese or acculturated Jurchen commanders. Jurchen and Mongolian-speaking soldiers willing to work for hire for the Ming had been brought from the Ilantumen (Sanxing) region of Nurgan to settle at Kaiyuan, inside the Ming boundaries. In time some of the descendants of those soldiers had also become traders and followed the paths of commerce into the towns of Tieling, Fushun, Guangning, Liaoyang City, Ningyuan, and Shenyang. They had settled, married the townspeople, taken to speaking Chinese, entered the urban and even the official occupations. The ubiquity of Jurchens in the late sixteenth century in Liaodong was commented upon by the Korean official Shin Chung-il, who pointed out to the Yi court in 1596, "I had gone only a few paces outside the Shanhai Pass before I began encountering Jurchens."36

Fushun was in the fateful position of affording accommodation, refreshment, and entertainment to Jurchen embassies passing from Nurgan to Peking. Jurchen "tribute" missions to the Ming capital were actually expeditions for imposing upon the hospitality of the Ming court and its eunuch managers, collecting bribes in goods and cash to ensure another year of amicability, and wringing high prices for their horses.37 The chieftains and their attendants may have told the Fushun townsmen of their strategies for maximizing their advantages in the legalized extortion that constituted the Ming "tributary" system with the Jurchens and the Mongols. Putative tributaries were accustomed to write the court in advance notifying it of their desires, specifying such and such a title (inevitably accompanied, it was understood, by a cash payment), so many bolts of silk, and certain items of clothing. Jurchen chieftains delighted in swelling their embassies with petty retainers and relatives; more than one headman had brought along his

Shin, Konju jichong*

dorok , hereafter KJD , 38.

Ma Wensheng, writing in the Wanli period, complained of the Jianzhou Jurchen's abuse of the tributary system: "The barbarians did not number more than several thousand, though it was normal for them to send a hundred on an embassy" ("Fu'an Dong Yi kao," 2). The Jurchen's pattern of exploitation of the system resembled that of the Mongols, who sometimes sent thousands on an embassy designed to accommodate a hundred.



mother to personally collect her booty.38 The results were further drain on the strained resources of the Ming empire and, at the same time, a boon to Fushun. Giocangga and his son Taksi came through more than once on embassies to Peking. Nurgaci led at least one large tribute embassy, reaching Fushun in the late spring on the way to a June 1 imperial audience in 1590. Jurchen resentments of the Ming military presence in the Northeast may have been commonly voiced already among the Jurchens passing through Fushun. Nurgaci claimed in 1618 that his grievances against the Ming were to be traced to the 1580s, and Korean emissaries to Nurgaci's territories in the 1590s heard his detailed complaints of abuse of Jurchen economic and political rights by Ming officials in Liaodong. It is reasonable to suppose that what became Nurgaci's famous "grievances" (see Chapter 3) were in some forms not unfamiliar to the Fushun public at the end of the sixteenth century.

In the eyes of the leading families of Jianzhou the Ming officials were arrogant. They pretended to military hegemony in the Northeast, when in fact they maintained their dominion in Liaodong at Jurchen sufferance. So long as the trade upon which Jurchen wealth depended continued, the Ming officials, unbearable as they were, would be borne. But interference with Jurchen economic enterprises, whether hunting, fishing, gathering, farming, mining, pearl curing, or ginseng reduction, would mean war. There was no question of the Jurchens not being ready to fight. Low-grade warfare was frequent among the Jurchen villages, as they competed for control over agricultural lands, hunting grounds, and mineral deposits. Danger drove increasing numbers of Jurchens into the relative, if temporary, safety of Liaodong.39 Nor were the disorders isolated in Nurgan; raids into central Liaodong, as far as Liaoyang, by Nurgan-based marauders were common in the 1570s and 1580s. But the chance of outright battle against the Ming was not great in the late sixteenth century. Indeed the dominant leaders of the timeWanggoo of the Jianzhou Right Garrison, Wan of Hada, Yangginu of Yehe, and the Jianzhou Left Garrison leaders Soocangga and Giocanggawere all known to have bargained with the Ming in efforts to reduce or subvert the powers of their Jurchen rivals. As hostilities intensified between the Ming and the Jianzhou Jurchens in the very late sixteenth and

The custom of having family members, including wives and mothers, present at the distribution of booty or the rendering of tribute continued through the Nurgaci period. Typical is MR TM 10 [1625]:1:2, which describes a gifting ceremony of the new year by the Taizi River.

Zhu Chengru, "Qing ru guan qian," 76.



early seventeenth centuries, the Fushunese confronted two distinct hazards: impoverishment from the loss of trade and physical peril from the hazards of war. Whatever the duration or ultimate outcome of a large conflict, a Jurchen onslaught against Fushun was a certainty, and it would mean death or slavery for a considerable portion of the population.

Fushun and the other towns of Liaodong were to become major sources of Qing political and economic capacity, though the legacy of these towns proved fragile in the rehistoricizing of the eighteenth century. Sinophone but acquainted with Jurchen, giving evidence of diverse religious influences,40 commercial but possessed of a small literate elite, populated primarily or secondarily by westerly influxes of Jurchen immigrants, dependent on continuing close ties to the Jurchen federations through their markets and hostels, these towns, when captured by Nurgaci between 1618 and 1625, provided the material and social base for the creation of a state. As backdrop to an elaborate genealogical defense, Fushun was not promising for Tong Bunian.

Political Names in Nurgan

Qian Qianyi had sought to damn Tong Bunian with the remark that "he has the same surname as the Jianzhou." By "Jianzhou" Qian meant to indicate the powerful Jurchen federation based in the nearby Tunggiya valley, as well as the lineage of its leader Nurgaci.41 The use of the Tong sur-

The evident Jesuit influences upon the Tong family will be discussed below. One should also note the observation of Susan Naquin, discussing the participation of bannermen in the pilgrimages to Miaofeng shan, as part of the veneration of the "Jade Woman," Bixia yuanjun , that shrines to the deity were well attested in seventeenth-century Liaodong. The Bixia cult is suggestive of many continuities between the town cultures of seventeenth-century Liaodong and garrison cultures of the early and middle Qing period. See "The Peking Pilgrimage to Miao-feng Shan," 371, where Naquin cites Fengtian tongzhi (1934) 93.18 and 93.32.

The origins and meaning of the name Jianzhou are unclear. Xu Zhongshu, on the basis of the Xin Tang shu, thought it might be derived from a regional name of Parhae, possibly in the vicinity of the origins of the Songari and Hun Rivers, between present-day Jilin City and Mt. Changbai ("Mingchu Jianzhou nuzhen ju di qian tu kao," 163). Xu disagreed with the opinion of Japanese scholars that the name "Jianzhou" had been carried north to Ilantumen with the migrating Jurchens; instead he thought that the Yuan records placed Jianzhou on the Suifen River, near the present border with Korea. On the basis of Ming and Yi records, Xu outlined the patenting of and subdivision of the Jianzhou "garrison" (wei ) in the fifteenth century.



name by Nurgaci and his ancestors was well known in China and Korea, so well known that the Nurgan territories were often called "Tong Nurgan" in recognition of the influence there of the Jianzhou federations. The first reference to Tong as a surname survives from the fifth-century Northern Wei empire of the Xianbei. It was the name of Tong Wan, a literary figure, and of Tong Shou, a general; both were natives of Liaodong.42 In Zheng Qiao's twelfth-century catalog of surnames, Tong occurs only as part of a complex of names common among the peoples of the north.43 By the first years of the fifteenth century, it was established among the Jurchens of Jilin, particularly the lineage of Mvngke Tem|r, who used it when introducing himself to the Yi court of Korea with other Jurchen headmen of federations recently migrated from the north. In Liaodong, the Tong name was limited to the family descended from Tong Dali and hailing from Fushun, later dispersed (as Tong Bunian noted) throughout Liaodong and northern China. But in the Jurchen territories of Nurgan, the name "Tong" was part of a complex interplay of historical geography and political affiliation, shaped by the massive southward and westward migrations of the Jurchens in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, then by the northward migrations of the fifteenth.

Following the fall of the Jurchen Jin empire in the thirteenth century, the Yuan empire of the Mongols organized the Jurchens who remained in the Northeast into the Kaiyuan "circuit" (lu ), subordinate to Liaoyang province.44 The Kaiyuan circuit was the geopolitical ancestor of the Nurgan territories. It encompassed modern Yilan (medieval Ilantumen) in Heilongjiang province, which was at the time a region inhabited by three great Jurchen federations, recorded in the Yuan history as the Wodolian, Huligai, and Taowen.45 The Ming at first followed closely the outline of Yuan administration in the Northeast. The intention of both was to make the geographical conformation of Northeast administration correspond to cultural contours: Liaodong came to connote the territory dominated by Jurchen and Chinese immigrants, and Nurgan indicated the native lands to the east and north. Ilantumen was translated into Chinese as Sanwan and the "garrison" was established in 1388. The Jurchens struggled among themselves for trading monopolies in the border towns and prizes from the Ming. In the early 1420s the town of Kaiyuan was disrupted by an upris-

Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan , 49, quotes the Bei Yan lu .

Tong shi 25:1a2b.

Yuan shi 59:3.

Yuan shi 59:4.



ing of Jurchens (apparently Jianzhou), who when dispersed by Ming troops set upon Maolian Jurchens (probably Uriangkha remnants), driving them out of the territory. But Jurchen power in Liaodong and at its peripheries was jeopardized when troops under the Oyirod commanders Toghto-bukha and Alacu invaded Liaodong at the time of the Oyirod siege of Peking in 1449. By the fifteenth century the remaining federations had all but dissolved in the migrations from Ilantumen toward the Nurgan territories of the east, into southern Jilin, into Liaodong, and into Korea.

This was the second, and lesser, of the Jurchen migrations to northern Korea. The connectionssometimes friendly and sometimes hostilebetween the Jurchens and Korea were old. People calling themselves Jurchens were settled as far south as Hamhung*

in north central Korea at the beginning of the twelfth century. The Yi court from its inception in 1392 had considered some Jurchen headmen as useful allies, and it honored the Jurchen Li Douran (Yi Tu-ran), who had become a loyal attendant of Yi Song-gye*

, the founder of the Yi dynasty.46 Shortly after their southerly migration in the 1380s (following the fall of the Yuan, and Ming attempts to impose some control on the Kaiyuan/Nurgan territories), the surviving Wodolianwho would later be known as the Odori,47 or Jianzhousought an alliance with the Yi lineage who were struggling to establish a dynastic government to displace that of the Koryo*

. Of the three Jurchen headmen presenting themselves at the new Yi court, Mvngke Tem|r,48 using the lineage name

T'aejo (r. 139298) of the Yi dynasty. On the orthodox narrative of Korean-Jurchen relations in the Yi ideology see Peter H. Lee, Songs of Flying Dragons , 15455; for the reflection of Yi Tu-ran's part in the conquests, 20910; 236.

Odori (Wodoli, Wodolian) is also a name of obscure origin. Informants to the Yi court explained that Odori, Hurka, and Tuowen were "towns" (song *

, cheng ) in Ilantumen. They were more likely federations, though each might well have had a principle settlement (Xu Zhongshu, "Mingchu Jianzhou nuzhen ju di qian tu kao," 166). On the basis of the geographical entries in the Yuan history, Xu guessed that Odori might originally have been in Jilin, even close to the Sarhu*

River and in the vicinity of the Pozhujiang (Tunggiya). If so, the ancestors of Nurgaci spent centuries in the same locality, which is not in agreement with the account, partially confirmed in Yi records, of a large migration led by Mvngke Tem|r's younger brother Fanca from northern Korea (where Qing tradition insists Odori was located) to the Tunggiya valley in the early fifteenth century. There are problems with Xu's theory, first of which is that it seems to read backward from the records of the Ming, where several localities or federation names associated at that time with Jilin are mentioned together.

This is Menggetiemur of the Ming records, Mengtemu of the Qing. For a biography of Mvngke Tem|r in English see DMB , 106566. In Chinese, see Qingshi gao 222:4b5a (1977 edition, 91169117, appendix to Ahacu biography). Mvngke Tem|r is mentioned frequently in the Yijo sillok for the reigns of T'aejong(140118) and Sejong (141850); see chapters 519. References to Jurchens in the Yijo sillok have been collected in Wang Zhonghan, ed., Chaoxian "Lichao shilu" zhong de n|zhen shiliao xuanpian (September 1979); see esp. 148.



Tong, came as head of the Odori; Ahacu (using the lineage name Gurun) came as head of the Hurka, and Burhu (using the lineage name Gao) came as head of the Udika (Woji). Of Burhu little more is heard, possibly because he represented a group of very loosely organized Jurchens who soon became objects of the mercenary incursions by the followers of Mvngke Tem|r and Ahacu.

Not later than the early years of the fifteenth century, Mvngke Tem|r led his Odori followers south of the Tumen, into the territory of Omohoi in the northern Korean peninsula.49 The Yi rise in Korea had included intense military campaigns to drive Jurchens not allied with the new order northward toward the Yalu (in Korean, Amnok) River and ultimately beyond it. Part of the motivation may have been to establish Yi sovereignty in the north of the peninsula. By commissioning the Jurchen "garrisons" in the early fourteenth century, the Ming had taken advantage of the territorial haziness of the Jurchen federations to make a latent claim on lands south of the Yalu. Mvngke Tem|r and Ahacu were among the powerful Jurchen leaders who threw in their lot with the Yi government, wiping up pockets of unassimilated Jurchen settlement. Both these headmen were seeking Ming as well as Yi recognition, and it came in the Yongle period, probably in 1411 with creation of a Jianzhou garrison.50 At the time of its creation command seems to have rested with Ahacu's son, Sigiyanu*

(Chinese, Shijianu). Ahacu had been awarded the name Li Sicheng by the Chinese; Sigiyanu, in his relations with the Ming, was known as Li Xianzhong.51 During his long leadership over the Odori (eastern Jianzhou) Jurchens,

Womuhe of the Ming records, Emouhui of the Qing shilu . This place remained Mvngke Tem|r's base in the ensuing years, but he was occasionally forced to abandon it temporarily because of pressure from wildmen, Koreans, and Mongols. Some of these withdrawals are mentioned in DMB , 1066.

The basic materials on the founding of garrisons in Nurgan are now represented in the Mingshi (1739) 90:9b13b, "Nurgan dusi." Serruys, Sino-J|rched Relations , 73ff., has culled a chronology of garrison registration from the Yonglu shilu which provides the closest dates available.

The most coherent work on the Lis of the Jianzhou garrison probably remains Wu Han, "Guanyu Dongbai shi shang yiwei guaijie de xin shiliao" in Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies (Yanjing xuebao) 17 (1931), see esp. 6062. The assertion of the Qingshi gao , 222:1a, that Ahacu was given the name Li Chengnian is at variance with known Ming records and probably an error. See also Kyoto index, 2325.



Mvngke Tem|r succeeded in nearly monopolizing Jurchen trade with the Koreans, which set the stage for shattering of the power of the Li federation in the Pozhu valley. (The Pozhu is a northeasterly tributary of the Hun River that flowed north of the Yalu toward Liaodong through present-day Jilin province of China.)52 From the time of their arrival at Huncun the Odori Jurchens carved out a military and commercial domain of their own, mostly under the pretext of battling the "wildmen."53 Later Sigiyanu's*

son Li Manzhu succeeded to leadership of the Jianzhou federation in Pozhu. During the deep rivalry between Mvngke Tem|r's federation and Ahacu's, political allegiances came to be signaled by the names "Tong" (for those associated with Mvngke Tem|r and the Odori) and "Li" (for those associated with the Ahacu lineage and the Hurka federation).

Following the patenting of the original Jianzhou garrison, Sigiyanu and his Li-surnamed affiliates seem to have enjoyed some favor from the Ming court and were frequent visitors to Peking. But in the 1420s he began encountering political and economic difficulties from the "Tong" Jianzhou in the east. Mvngke Tem|r overshadowed Sigiyanu in the eyes of the Yi border authorities, and the Li Jianzhou eventually found themselves cut out of the trade with the Koreans. At the same time Mvngke Tem|r began suing in Peking for a command of his own. Shortly after Sigiyanu's death in 1426 Mvngke Tem|r was made "general commander" (dudu qianshi ) of the Jianzhou garrison in a rather grand ceremony at the Ming court that included the bestowal of a good deal of wealth, mostly in the form of paper money, upon Mvngke Tem|r and his entourageone of whose mother, nie Tong, had come along to collect her packet of bills in person. Two months later Li Manzhu, the son of Sigiyanu, was given a less prestigious title within the garrison. By 1428 a "left"that is, eastgarrison had been created for Mvngke Tem|r and most ranks filled by men using the surname Tong.54 Money-collecting embassies from the Jianzhou Left Garrison to

This is clearly visible in Qingdai yitong ditu (1966), a photo reprint of the 1760 imperial map collation, p. 103, lattitude 4243, longitude 1011.

Woji [niyalma] , Jurchen udi-e [nialma] , "forest [dwellers]," the term for the people the Ming and Yi called "wildmen" (Chinese yeren , Korean ya'in ), and, on occasion, used to mean "Jurchens" generally. The Jurchen word evidently had a glottal or fricative before the generative e , which was reflected in the Ming and Yi transcriptions of wudiha and udika , respectively. The Woji included the ancestors of the present Nivkhs, Ulchs, Nanays, Giliaks, Oronchons, Evenks, and other peoples of Northeast Asia.

See, for instance, Kyoto index, 30ff.



the Ming court were continuous; the Li's were being cut off at Peking just as they had been pushed out of the Korean commerce. In 1429 Li Manzhu asked to be appointed a bodyguard-in-residence at Peking; the request was denied. The next year he came to Peking to complain of Mvngke Tem|r's monopolization of the Korean trade. The year after that his mother came to court to plead his case. Nothing seems to have helped. Li Manzhu evidently continued to try to battle for a foothold in Korea, but Yi forces contained him at the Pozhu in 1434. Meanwhile Mvngke Tem|r and his younger brother Fanca continued to rise in the estimation of the Ming court, and in 1432 the former was given the title of "General of the Right [that is, westerly garrison]" (you dudu ). The following year, Mvngke Tem|r and his son Agu were killed in Omohoi, apparently while fighting Qixing/Nadan Hala (seven-surnames) "wildmen."55 Fanca withdrew north across the Tumen River, possibly under pressure from Yi forces or possibly because of a rebellion among the Odori. He set his sights upon the Pozhu valley, where Li Manzhu was based.56 It was probably in 1436 that Fanca and his people arrived. There ensued a power struggle that resulted in the permanent subordination of Li Manzhu and his descendants within the Jianzhou federation.57 After the breaking of Li power, the Pozhu valley became known as Tunggiyain Chinese Tongjia, "the Tong home"and the Pozhu River became the Tongjiajiang. Shortly thereafter the "garrison"

Kyoto index, p. 54, to Ming shilu , "Xuande 9," second month, "gengshen" (fourteenth day). It may be that Mvngke Temur's younger brother, name unknown, was also killed in the incident; KF and this chapter's note 47. His killers are recorded in the Qingshi gao 222:4 as Qixing yeren . Ming and Yi records frequently write the name of this group as "seven star" (qixing ), but the Huang Qing zhigong tu describes them in Chinese and in Manchu as the more likely "seven surnames" (ilan nadan, qixing ). The circumstances suggest that at this time Mvngke Tem|r was in the employ of the Yi court. It is equally possible, however, that the Ming report obscures the fact that Mvngke Tem|r was actually killed while fighting Yi troops. In this period Korean forces were pushing Jurchens out of Omohoi; the deaths of Mvngke Tem|r and Agu coincide with the routing of Li Manzhu from his southern base and his containment north of the Yalu by the Koreans.

Li was forced to abandon it several times; on Li's fortunes and misfortunes see Rossabi, The Jurchens in the Y|an and Ming , 4142, and Wu Han, "Guanyu Dongbei shi shang yiwei guaijie xin shiliao," passim. This is about 225 miles (about 160 kilometers) as the crow flies. In fact the group probably followed the Tumen west to Tianchi, then the Yalu at least as far as present-day Linjiang, at the eastern Tunggiya perimeter. The trek could hardly have been less than 550 kilometers (about 340 miles).

If Shin Chung-il was correctly informed, Fanca or Cungsan*

may even have appropriated Li's own homestead. See Chapter 3.



was split once again, into a "left camp" (zuo suo ) for Mvngke Tem|r's son Cungsan*

58 and a "right camp" (you suo ) to be retained by Fanca. The two groups soon moved farther west, to a hill site at the Liaodong perimeter.

Mvngke Tem|r is reported to have used the surname "Tong."59 He certainly had no wish to disguise his lineage name, which was known and frequently recorded. Nor does it appear to be the case that Mvngke Tem|r or his fellow Tong intended anyone to think that they had a "Chinese" surname. He may have declined to even indicate which Chinese character was intended, since scribes wrote the name variously and developed their own regional conventions for standardizing it. It is possible, as Mitamura Taisuke has speculated, that Tongmeaning, in some transcriptions, "with" or "same"was a sort of nickname applied to Mvngke Tem|r's lineage because they were of Hurka origin and wished to play upon the fact that the Hurkas had supplied consorts to the imperial Wanyan/Wanggiya lineage of the Jin Jurchens.60 What is certain is that the connection of the epithet "Tong" with the lineage of Mvngke Tem|r was not an eccentricity or an innovation. It was already established among the Jurchens who had settled in north China after the fall of the Jurchen Jin empire, and Tao Zongyi noted in his "Records of a Rest from Plowing" (Zhuogeng lu ) in the thirteenth century that Tong was the surname used by those descended from

"Dongshan" in Qingshi gao (222, passim); "Chongshan" in the Qing shilu . Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan , 36, speculated that the name and others of Mvngke Tem|r's descendants were inspired by the Tong surname they used. This is possible, but it should also be noted that Cungsan was a common Jurchen name.

For a sampling of citations see Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan , 34ff. On the use of the surname among his descendants up to Nurgaci see Ch'en Chieh-hsien Qingshi zab (Taipei, 1977), 2: 15556. The use of the Tong surname by the lineage has been discussed by Mitamura, Shincho*

zenshi no kenkyu*

, 99103. The name is completely unacknowledged by Qing records but is confirmed in abundance by Ming and Yi records. Interestingly, the Qing accounts come close referring to it. KF 1.9a describes the beginnings of the Jianzhou garrison in the Yongle period and says that the garrison commanders and their sons "all received surnames and personal names in recognition of their service." Immediately below (9b) is provided a sketchy account of the deaths of a Jianzhou commander, his younger brother, and his son while fighting the "seven-surname wildmen" (Qixing yeren ), who then "escaped to Korea." This can be nothing other than an account of the deaths of Mvngke Tem|r, his younger brother, and his son Agu in Omohoi in 1434but with no names for the principals, dates, or other specifics. Mvngke Tem|r, of course, has already appeared in the work as the mythical Emperor Zhaozu, source of Nurgaci's political authority, and associating him in this instance with facts may have been seen as contrary to the spirit of the text.

Mitamura, Shincho*

zenshi , 99101.



the Jurchen lineage whose name was written with the characters "Jiagu."61 In Mvngke Tem|r's time the lineage name was what would now be pronounced as "Jiawen" or "Juewen"; in the lexicographical section (guoyu jie )62 of the Jin imperial history the Jiagu lineage name was glossed "Kalegu"; and in Qing times it would be standardized as "Gioro."63

In the eighteenth century the geographical origins of the earliest Manchu constituency, which the Qianlong court attempted retrospectively to construct, were key to the cultural ambiguities of Liaodong. Onomastics became an essential ideological tool of those in service to the Qing court as it attempted to refine and redefine the names associated with the regime's own sources. The "Collected Genealogies of the Eight-Banner and Manchu Lineages" of 1745 established a maxim in its remark that Manchu lineage names were "place names" (diming ). This apparent law has created a great deal of confusion regarding a distinction between some names that are assumed to be old, or genuine, and others that are new, or somehow considered artificial.64 In the latter category are those evidently based upon Chinese surnames and the addition of the Chinese word for family, jia .65 Names formed in this way were numerous among the Qing Manchus, and include Magiya (Ma jia), Gaogiya (Gao jia), Janggiya (Zhang jia), Joogiya (Zhao jia), Ligiya (Li jia), and Tunggiya (Tong jia). In many instances these names were adopted by Chinese-martial bannermen wishing to transpose their own Chinese surnames into ostensibly Manchu lineage names, and these instances clearly are exceptions to the stated rule that Manchu lineage names are place names. But a majority of names in this category cannot be accounted for as altered Chinese surnames. Moreover, some of the names which would appear to be derived from Chinese surnames are not new Manchu names but old Jurchen ones, and it is possible that they include

Zhuogeng lu 1: "Shizu zhi." Jin Qizong (Nuzhen wen cidian , 79) has reconstructed this as Jurchen Gia-gu.

This has been omitted from the Guofang edition of the Jinshi , where a text almost identical to Tao Zongyi's has been substituted. But it is still present in the Zhonghua reprint of the Qianlong edition (following juan 116).

For citations and a discussion of their phonological significance see Zhu, Hou Jin guohan , 25-26.

This distinction is in the imperial prefaces, and I myself mistakenly followed it in 1983; see "'Historical and Magic Unity.'"

Qing records in Chinese do not acknowledge this etymology in Jurchen or Manchu lineage names. KF , for instance, transliterates giya in Manchu lineage names as the word for "happy, auspicious." BMST uses that character or the word for "pillar." In no case is the character for "family, household" used.



the Guwalgiya*

(Guan jia) and its branches, as well as the Wanggiya/Wanyan (Wang jia),66 who were the ruling lineage of the Jurchen Jin empire in the twelfth century.

Nevertheless, the assertion of the "Collected Genealogies of the Eight-Banner and Manchu Lineages" that Manchu surnames are place names is a clue to the social history of the Liaodong and southern Jilin environs. Jurchen/Manchu lineages (to be discussed in Chapter 3) were not eternal entities but were constantly formed and re-formed through the social and economic processes of life in the Jurchen territories. Because of social and economic importance of these lineages, nomenclature changed as circumstances required. Many Jurchen lineages took up the practice of using surnames. Settlers moving into a new region might cause a valley, river, or settlement to be called after their own surnames. The presence of settlers having Chinese or Korean surnames and the attachment of these names to places within the Jurchen territories is well attested, for instance, in Shin Chung-il's record of his visit to Nurgaci's homestead in 1596.67 Jurchens who moved to the region later and formed new lineage groups would call themselves after the name of the place where they lived, or the name of the closest place. If it was the village of the Ma family, the Jurchens might thereafter be called the Magiya lineage. The problem of degenerating and regenerating lineages among the Jurchens is connected to the alienation of individuals from lineage affiliations, whether through migration, urbanization, or enslavement. This was a long-standing social phenomenon in Northeastern Asia, referred to under the term baisin *

as early as the composition of the "Secret History of the Mongols."68 Qing genealogical

Jin Qizong (Nuzhen wen cidian , 82, 132) reconstructs this as Jurchen Won (g)ien.

See as examples Wangjia (Shin KJD , 11), Huangjia (12), or Wang Zhi Chuan (KJD , 13).

Baisin niyalma could be a corruption of Chinese baixing , "the hundred names." Baisin was a venerable institution in Inner Asia. The term was known among the Mongols of the thirteenth century and occurs in "Secret History of the Mongols" (on this work see Chapter 6). Though the meaning of baisin in Qing registries is clearindividuals without lineage affiliationthe etymology seems more ambiguous to me now than it did in 1989 ("Qianlong Retrospect"). The borrowing is more likely via Mongolian than directly from Chinese and may be connected to a similar word, bayising , which in the sixteenth century was both the name for a town (Chinese Bansheng, "wooden places" near Guihua) and a term for a house of wood, brick, or rammed earth. Rozycki, however, thinks the Mongolian term was of Persian origin, in which case the Chinese may have been a false etymology (Mongol Elements in Manchu , 23). These dwellings were characteristic of the sort of community where agricultural servants of the Mongols and later theJurchens lived, and it is certainly possible that the name for the type of settlement became the term for the people living there (see Serruys, The Mongols and Ming China , 8:24041). Chinese baixing (hundred names), bansheng (wooden structures), or Persian could be the source for the Jurchen word, by way of Mongolian. This is not to rule out the possibility of two words ("individuals of blank status" and "communities with wooden structures") with distinct etymologies.



records preserve a portrait of a social category with this name made up of people of indeterminate descent.69 Shunzhi (164461) era revisions of earlier records call these individuals baishen ren , "individuals of blank status," a transposition of Manchu baisin *

niyalma , and their vulnerable identities were powerfully affected by the state-building processes overseen by Nurgaci and Hung Taiji.

The conquest of the Pozhu valley by Jurchens using the Tong surname became the determining factor in the identification of the Tunggiya lineage of the Qing period. According to the "Collected Genealogies of the Eight-Banner and Manchu Lineages," the Tunggiya originated at Maca.70 Detailed maps of the Qianlong period show Maca as an easterly tributary of the Tunggiya-ula, "Tunggiya River," which had earlier been the Pozhu River. The Tunggiya of the fifteenth or early sixteenth century were a new lineage, formed in the Tunggiya valley by Bahu Teksin.71 This could not have happened before the arrival of Fanca and the changing of the name of the valley in the middle fifteenth century. In Bahu Teksin's time, ancestors of Tong Bunian were already well established in eastern Liaodong, and especially at Fushun. Though Qing scholarship would later insist upon an identification of the Tunggiya lineage of Nurgan with the Tong families of Fushun, the political geography of the Pozhu/Tunggiya valley demonstrates the impossibility of this identification (for which there is no evidence at all apart from that manufactured by the Qing court in the later seventeenth century).

The general vicinity of Tunggiya remained the Jianzhou base until the early seventeenth century, when central Liaodong was conquered and occupied. At the time that Nurgaci gained control of the federationa century and a half after Fanca had occupied the sometime Pozhu River valley

For early citations of baisin in the seventeenth century see Chen Jiahua, "Qingchu baishen ren xi."

BMST 19:1a. All of juan 19 and much of juan 20 is devoted to the Tunggiya lineage. Almost without exception, those hailing from Tunggiya proper were enrolled in the Manchu Plain White Banner. They are the lineage of Nikan Wailan (19:18a), on whom see Chapter 3.

BMST 19:1ab. No date is given for the formation of the mukun*

. See also Mitamura, Shincho*

zenshi , 72.



and it had been renamed Tunggiyathe Tong surname was an emblem of the hegemony of the Jianzhou federation and of the lineage of Mvngke Tem|r. It was not a lineage name proper but more like an alliance name. When Shin Chung-il visited Nurgaci's settlement at Fe Ala in 1596, he found that not only the entire lineage of Nurgaci used the Tong surname, but it was also used by close political associatesincluding Yangguri*

, Hohori*

, and Hurgan, who would later be among the founders of the "eight great families" (ba dajia ) of the Qingand those like Cinggiha and Hurgan's father Hulagu*

, who had married into Nurgaci's family. Of the thirty-eight headmen appearing in Shin's account, thirty used the Tong surname, five used the Li surname, two used Wang, and one had the Korean surname of Kim. Nurgaci himself used the Tong surname in his youth as a mark of identity and political affiliations meaningful to both the Ming and the Yi courts.

The Liaodongese

Tong Bunian did not dispute the authority of genealogy in matters of identity and loyalty, and he assumed the importance of family narrative in the manifestation of loyalty or treason. In "Record of Prisoned Rage" he provided nine generations of Chinese names for his ancestors and described them as circuit traders who had taken an early role in the establishment of Ming military and commercial hegemony in Liaodong. He never suggested that his ancestors may have come from anywhere but northern China. He pointed to his forebears, who had participated in the earliest Ming actions in Liaodong: "Our founding ancestor served as an infantryman [xiaoqi ] during the northern campaigns of Hongwu 16 [1383]; in 21 [1388] he was sent to post notices in the Tieling garrison and also did so in Korea, where he was promoted to office [zongqi ]. Because of his service in the suppression of the Nurgan wildmen he was appointed centuriarch [baihu ], was reassigned to the right camp [you suo ] of the Sanwan garrison in 28 (1395) and killed wildmen in the Hulawun*

region. He was originally married to a woman surnamed Wang."72

From the genealogical appendix, in eight juan , which Tong Guoqi attached to his father Bunian's Yufen lu (issued in 1654); see 1:2a. It was quoted at length by Zhu Xizu, Hou Jin guohan , 46, 4950. The Hulawun River region was apparently in southern Heilongjiang, and a Ming-period Jurchen citation for a phrase very similar to the one used by Tong Bunian here has been found by Jin Qizong: He-lu-un ula udi-e nialma , "forest people of the He-lu-un River" (see Nuzhen wen cidian , 139).



The career that Tong Bunian sketched for his "founding ancestor" Tong Dali in the genealogy he appended to the "Record of Prisoned Rage" is like that of a Jurchen soldier, or mercenary, in the ranks of the Ming occupation forces in Liaodong. Indeed the date of his recruitment, 1383, is very close to the time of a remark preserved in the Chinese annals indicating that Ming military recruitment for service in Liaodong was surging among Jurchens and Koreans.73 The perambulations attributed to Tong Dali in his career as a Ming soldier correspond neatly with the movements of the Sanwan garrison, first established at Ilantumen and moved to Kaiyuan in 1395, after a series of defeats in their attempts to pacify "wildmen" at the Korean border. Tong Dali's ranks were all the normal ranks of the Northeastern garrison system. In these particulars his career was typical of the "capitulated" (guifu ) Jurchens. It closely paralleled, for instance, that of one Tong Dalaha who also received centuriarch (baihu ) rank, campaigned against wildmen along the Yalu River, and married into the "Wang" familyWang (Wanyan, Wanggiya) being in various forms a surname as common among Jurchen descendants as it was among Chinese descendants in the region.74

The evidence, then, suggests that Tong Dali was one of the Jurchens from the Sanwan garrison who were permitted by the Ming government to settle in Liaodong. He was a rather early adherent to the Ming cause, serving in their army even before the formal registration of the Sanwan garrison at Ilantumen, and may have inspired sufficient trust to have been among the many Jurchens asked to serve as intermediaries between the court and the federation leaders; his "posting notices" (zhanggua ) in Tieling and in Korea may have been references to such activities.75 The lavish title with which he is supposed to have been honored, "General Who Stabi-

Zhu Chengru, 74, from Ming Taizu shilu , 167 (Hongwu 15).

Scraps of information on Tongdalaha/Tong Dalaha are found in Ming shilu , "Xuande 6," sixth month, kuichou (twenty-first day). Mindai manmoshiryo*

,  Manshu hen (1954), 48. He is not the same person as Tong Dali. Mitamura Taisuke (Shincho*

  zenshi , 72) provides a reconstruction of Tongdalaha's genealogy, based on Ming records. In contrast to Mitamura's reconstructed genealogy, Zhu Xizu (Hou Jin guohan , 4445) suggests that Tong Dalaha was of the same lineage as Ahacu and that Dalaha was the father of Tong Dali, for which there is no convincing evidence. Zhu attributes to Naito Torajiro*

the hypothesis that Tong Dalaha was the same person as Darhan Tumet, the son of Bahu Teksin; this is posited on the false testimony of the BMST (see next chapter), appears to be linguistically adventurous, and is in addition a chronological improbability.

Relaying information from the Ming government in Peking to the Nurgan tribes and back again was a profession for many Jurchens. Morris Rossabi touches on this several times; see The Jurchens in the Y|an and Ming , esp. 27. See also Serruys, Sino-J|rched Relations , 5051.



lizes the Nation" (zhenguo jiangjun ), was also characteristic of Ming treatment of their tenuous allies in the Northeast.76 A branch of the family probably arrived in Fushun by the middle or later fifteenth century. According to local tradition,77 an ancestor named Darhaci brought the family there. "On account of trade" he had moved first from Liaoyang to Kaiyuan and then from Kaiyuan to Fushun. If Darhaci used a Chinese name, it may have been any of several provided in Tong Bunian's genealogy for the descendants of Dali's son, Tong Jing. Darhaci was evidently one of those Jurchens of the area, on good terms with Ming trade officials, who made an ample living through the sale of ginseng, horses, pelts, and luxury foodstuffs.78

By the later sixteenth century the Tong of Fushun were one of the most prominent, largest, and wealthiest collection of lineages in the region. Their stability in Fushun was remarkable. Tong Bunian had emphasized the ancestral distance between himself and Tong Yangxing and Tong Yangzhenthe two who caused him so much trouble by joining Nurgaci's military efforts after the taking of Fushun in 1618by pointing out that they shared a single ancestor with him no closer than four generations in the past. Yet they were all raised in Fushun, and as a group they may have exemplified Fushun's literate elite. Bunian possibly shared with his distant cousins a knowledge of Christianity and perhaps the skillscannon manufacture and deploymentwith which it was associated. Certainly Yangzhen and Yangxing were familiar with military arts introduced by the Jesuits, and Tong Bunian's son Guoqi would later distinguish himself as a friend of the Jesuits in Fujian, Zhejiang, and Peking.79 Numerous and influential as they were, the Tong lineage was not the only lineage of easterly origin who were leaders in seventeenth-century Liaodong. Among the better known of such families were the Guior Ch'oefamily,80 the Shi family of Guangning, and the Li, or Yi, lineages of Tieling. The latter were descendants of immigrants to northern Liaodong from a region south of the Yalu River. As mentioned above, northern Korea, including Omohoi, had been a heavily Jur-

This was a common honorific for higher ranks in the dusi system; see for instance one Zhang Wang, cited in Nurgan Yongningsi beiji , "Appendix," 2.

See Liaodong zhi , "Shizu" (1537) 1.2a.

See Deng, "Shilun Ming yu Hou Jin zhanzheng de yuanyin ji qi xingzhi," esp. 1213.

On the Jesuit associations of the Kangxi emperor's uncle Tong Guowei see also Yang Zhen, Kangxi huangdi yijia , 36163.

The surname used by this family was probably of Korean inspiration. Those interested in them might begin with Huang Weihan's Heishui xianmin zhuan, juan 1624.



chen area for hundreds of years before the later fourteenth century, when the government of Yi Korea began campaigns to drive them north. Like the Ming, the Yi used a combination of military occupation and agricultural colonization to secure the region. Many Jurchens joined the Yi garrisons established in the vicinity of the Yalu, and others entered trade, frequently assuming Korean surnames. Li Chengliang's ancestor Li Yingni (or Yi Yongnok*

) may have been a contemporary of Tong Dali and Mvngke Tem|r.81 He left his home in northern Korea and entered Liaodong, where he became a scribe in the Tieling garrison. That is, like Tong Dali he entered the Ming military at a time when the large numbers of Jurchen and Korean recruits were noted and took up a role resembling Tong Dali's. Given the demography of northern Korea in Li Yingni's time, the probability that he was of Jurchen descent, and followed a career path similar to Tong Dali's (either opportunistically or under pressure from Korean incursions) is greater than that he was a "Korean" who abandoned agriculture or trade to undertake an illegal trek to Liaodong.

These are not the only similarities between the Li lineages of Tieling and the Tong lineages of Fushun. Li Yingni's descendant (and Li Chengliang's son) Li Rubo (15531621), like Tong Bunian, was a Ming military official and died a reported suicide in prison (after Nurgaci's victory at Sarhu*

); his brother Li Ruzhen (d. 1631) was imprisoned the same year for refusing to aid in the defense of Tieling.82 Following the conquest of Tieling, Rubo's nephews Li Zunzu and Li Sizheng joined their distant relative Li Yongfang (who had refused to defend Fushun) at Nurgaci's side and encouraged others of the lineage to defect from the Ming. Fang Chao-ying commented with reference to the Li of Tieling, "Contrary to customs, these men not only did not avenge the deaths of their forebears but served the Manchus vigorously and rose to be high officials."83 Indeed, like the Tong of Fushun and the Shi of Guangning, the Li of Tieling became prominent in the occupation government in China, were ennobled by the Qing court, and frequently took "Manchu" names and wives. For reasons to be discussed below, the histories of such families were strongly overwritten in the later seventeenth century and in the eighteenth century, so that a precise estimate of the size of this cultural stratum is difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the Tong, Li,

ECCP places him "five generations" before Li Chengliang.

Rubo had succeeded his brother Li Rumei as brigade-general in Liaodong in 1618, but was arrested with his superior Yang Hao after the Ming attempt to attack Hetu Ala, which resulted in the disastrous rout at Sarhu. Rubo committed suicide in prison very shortly afterward.

ECCP , 451.



Cui, and Shi are prominent examples of the contemporary cultural complexities of late Ming Liaodong and of the sources of Qing state-building.

Ming fear of subversion by Nurgaci in the Northeast was profound. If they were not aware themselves of Nurgaci's talent for converting to his cause those who had migrated and even been forcibly taken to his territories from Liaodong, they were provided with plentiful information from Koreans who were better informed of Nurgaci's world than they. In the early 1620s reports from Liaodong of the activities of Nurgaci's spieswho could have been ancestral Chinese, Jurchens, Mongols, or any one of these passing for any of the othersin Liaodong were continuous.84 The common people of Liaodong were, as Xiong Tingbi had noted, apparently insufficiently interested in whether they were ruled by the Ming or by Nurgaci to actively support the Ming defense effort, and military officers were increasingly found to be undependable in their responsibilities. That minority of real or imagined subversivesincluding Li Rubo, Li Ruzhen, and Tong Bunianwho could be seized and brought to trial were not adequate as examples to deter new deserters. The larger number whofollowing the examples of Li Yongfang, Tong Yangxing, and Tong Yangzhenarrived at Nurgaci's camp not only avoided the Ming prosecutors but were reported to live literally as princes in Nurgaci's realm. Liaodong, having suffered for generations under the exactions and mismanagement of Ming eunuchs and officials, had social and cultural complexities that Nurgaci strummed shrewdly, but to which the Ming court was tone-deaf. The result was that the Jin conquest of Liaodong (though not its governance) was easier than perhaps even Nurgaci had expected, and the Ming were left to blame spies, witches, and traitors for the precipitous deterioration of their rule in the Northeast.

Yan, Nurhachi zhuan , 12628, provides documentation.







Continues...

Excerpted from A Translucent Mirror by Pamela Kyle Crossley Copyright © 2002 by Pamela Kyle Crossley. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.