Concurrent and short-lived dynasties in imperial China challenge those who attempt to write about the past when circumstances change. Reviewed in their political context, the works of Xu Xuan 徐鉉 (917–992) – who served under three states in the tenth century – reveal both consistency and flexibility in addressing such challenges. In navigating the recent past, Xu expressed positions that were practical politically and meaningful personally. Xu Xuan was both praised and condemned for his actions and what he wrote about the past, but these assessments are coloured by later contexts and perspectives and say little about how Xu himself dealt with his choices. Xu certainly maintained nostalgia and loyalty for the Southern Tang, but this was mediated by the demands of his service to the Song.
The tenth century was a period of dramatic political reordering in China, much of it occurring during Xu's lifetime. He experienced two political transitions. He was born in 917 in Wu 吳, one of a collection of states and regional forces jostling for position following the final collapse of Tang power. He entered its service at a young age but this state became the Qi 齊 in 937 following internal succession. It was soon renamed Tang 唐 after its ruler claimed descent from the Tang's ruling house, to become known to history as the Southern Tang 南唐.Footnote 1 Xu was an official of this state for its entire existence, until it was conquered by the Song in 976.Footnote 2 Xu was the most renowned southern official to find a position in the Song bureaucracy, and his surviving works are among the most voluminous.Footnote 3
The first of the two dynastic transitions Xu experienced was less traumatic than the second. Since the Southern Tang's founder had been in firm control of Wu for several years before the change, resistance appears to have been limited to older military figures who had served the Wu's founder. Since one state simply became its successor over several years, it was not disruptive to the careers of most officials. In contrast, the Southern Tang fell to the Song through force of arms, after which Xu entered into a whole new dynasty that had already existed for some fifteen years.
Entering Song service so long after the dynasty's establishment may have been a disadvantage – and one source suggests that southern officials were required to wear a different colour at court to distinguish themselves from their northern colleaguesFootnote 4 – but Xu appears to have joined the Song just prior to a critical phase in its early history. After the death of Taizu 太祖 (r. 960–976) and the end of the last of the southern states, his brother and second emperor of the Song Taizong 太宗 (r. 976–997) launched a programme aimed at the consolidation of Song rule. Since Xu's promotion to significant positions occurred only after Taizong's enthronement, this emperor's efforts to stamp his own authority on the court may have given new officials the chance to prove their worth.
In a period of ongoing political turmoil such as the tenth century, each official must choose his course of action: “Their options came down basically to three: retreat permanently from public life; commit to one regime and serve that to the death; or serve different leaders and regimes as the situation changed”.Footnote 5 Among his contemporaries, Xu was not alone in serving more than one regime. Many officials of the conquered southern states, for example, found service under the Song in both central and regional administration. Some later historians have suggested that the officials of conquered states made great cultural contributions to the early Song, while others have suggested that they were given work on the great Song compilation projects, as was Xu, to keep them out of the way.Footnote 6
Whatever the case, one record of Xu's life betrays uneasiness over the transition. In Xu's tomb epitaph, Li Fang 李昉 (925–996) carefully uses a meaningful exchange to introduce the story of Xu's official service under the Song. It records that in a conversation with Taizu, Xu stated he deserved death following the fall of the Southern Tang.Footnote 7 This purported demonstration of loyalty meets with the approval of the Song ruler, who takes Xu into his service. This act, or at least the description of it, validates Xu's entry into service to the Song, serving as a defence of his actions in the arc of his life for both peers and posterity. Glen Dudbridge has argued that an offer to die in these circumstances exonerates an official for failing to die in fact.Footnote 8 This suggests that while such transitions may have been comparatively commonplace, they could damage reputations as well as be traumatic for the individuals concerned.
This concern was warranted, since later assessments are critical of Xu Xuan's choices. Examples of other dialogues between Xu and Taizu in other works serve a different purpose, depicting Xu on a mission in defence of the Southern Tang. These record that he is defeated in argument by Taizu, thereby condemning his mission and his state in the face of the Song ascendancy.Footnote 9 For the purpose of proclaiming the legitimacy of the Song, these other purported dialogues use Xu as a foil to condemn any that might resist.
More specific criticism of Xu is directed at his history of the Southern Tang, Jiangnan lu 江南錄. Xu compiled this work with Tang Yue 湯悅 (fl. 940–983) under the Song. The appearance of Jiangnan lu prompted the production of a number of other works with alternative depictions of events under the Southern Tang, often expressly to correct Xu's “errors”.Footnote 10 Direct condemnation of Xu appears in Diaoji litan 釣磯立談, which suggests that Xu deliberately obscured the merit of officials who lost their lives in the Southern Tang's last years – through forthright remonstrance with the last ruler or suicide during the fall of the capital Jinling – at a time when Xu himself was incapable of meaningful action.Footnote 11
Later generations, in the eleventh century, were also critical of Xu. Wang Anshi 王安石 (1021–86) echoes Diaoji litan in his assessment of Jiangnan lu, basing his judgement on information from his family. But Wang also attacked Xu for protecting the reputation of the Southern Tang more generally. Wang claimed that in slandering Pan You 潘佑 (d. c. 973), an official who died after offering remonstrance, Xu was also protecting the last ruler Li Yu 李煜 (r. 961–976) from blame he deserved. For Wang, Li Yu's errors were clear evidence of his court's lack of legitimacy and he condemned Xu for insisting that the state fell to the Song simply as part of the cycle of history and not through any fault. Similar criticism is voiced by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 (1007–72). But not all officials of this period were of this view: Su Che 蘇轍 (1039–1112) chose to praise Xu for his loyal service.Footnote 12
At least one reader of Xu's earlier work of history on Wu, Wu lu 吳錄, gave a more nuanced view of its content. While the compilers of Cefu yuangui 冊府元龜 and Sima Guang rejected its content for misrepresenting events in Wu's favour, Hong Mai 洪邁 (1123–1202) argued that the work still had value for presenting an alternative point of view.Footnote 13 While Hong was writing in the twelfth century, many assessments of Xu's works in the eleventh cannot be clearly detached from the political circumstances under which they were produced and they do not take account of the challenges Xu faced.Footnote 14 We are not in a position today to judge Xu's depiction of events for ourselves since his works of history do not survive, but we can visit his extant works to gain some understanding of the loyalties and obligations he managed in his written life.
Dividing loyalty
In a group of essays, Xu outlined the mutual responsibility that binds minister and ruler. In one of these, he praised the first Han emperor Liu Bang 劉邦 (r. 202–195 bce) for pardoning a man who had fought against him and for executing another who had betrayed Liu Bang's adversary.Footnote 15 According to Glen Dudbridge, Xu was suggesting that “firm loyalty to one's current ruler was a stronger value than early support for the man who would hold power next”.Footnote 16 Since this recognizes the possibility of a transfer of power, it would appear to justify both Xu's continuing service to the Southern Tang in the years after the establishment of the Song in 960 and service to the Song from 976. Despite the clear relevance of this model, Xu does not address the impact of his own experience, so we must look for evidence of this elsewhere.
During his service to the Southern Tang, Xu saw it as the legitimate dynasty and cast aspersions on regimes in the north. In a work bidding farewell to an official on a mission to the Khitan in 947, Xu Xuan wrote that because of “bandit states” on the central plain, it had been “forty years since the light of the sun and the moon had reached the land of the Yellow and Luo Rivers”.Footnote 17 Proper governance, he claimed, existed only south of the Yangzi. In works written under the Southern Tang, he refers to the north as “the northern plain” or simply “the north”, without using dynastic titles.
But Xu's actions under the Song suggest a contradictory view. In 984 Xu, aged sixty-eight sui and in his ninth year of service to the Song, was involved in a significant decision regarding the meaning of the past. It involved the Song's choice for the ruling phase of the dynasty from among the five phases in the sequence of Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal and Water. In 960 the Song had adopted Fire as the ruling phase of the dynasty. The reasoning for this was straightforward: the Later Zhou (951–60) had been ruled by the phase of Wood, and the Song claimed to have received the mandate directly from the Later Zhou. Recognizing the Later Zhou as legitimate bearer of the mandate, the Song simply adopted the next phase in the series. But in 984, a commoner by the name of Zhao Chuiqing 趙垂慶 (n.d.) recommended that the Song adopt the phase of Metal. Zhao reasoned that the mandate had transferred directly from the Tang to the Song. Since the Tang had been Earth, the Song should be Metal. He added the caveat that if the Five Dynasties did all receive the mandate, then the Song should be Metal in any case. After the Tang proper had been ruled by Earth, the Later Liang (907–23) would have been Metal, the following four dynasties cycling through Water, Wood, Fire, Earth, resulting in the Song having Metal. He also drew attention to the many omens recorded since the founding of the dynasty associated with the colour white, the colour of the phase Metal.Footnote 18
The reason for ambiguity on this issue lay in events earlier in the tenth century. The five northern dynasties that followed each other in quick succession after the fall of the Tang and before the establishment of the Song were the Later Liang, the Later Tang (923–36), the Later Jin (936–46), the Later Han (947–50) and the Later Zhou. After taking power from the Tang, the Later Liang, the first of the Five Dynasties, had adopted Metal, the next in the sequence after the Tang's Earth.Footnote 19 The Later Liang was vanquished by forces under the Turkic Li Cunxu 李存勗 (885–926), who became Zhuangzong 莊宗 (r. 923–926) of the Later Tang. Li's family had been awarded the imperial surname of Li for service to the Tang during the Huang Chao 黃巢 rebellion. As a result, Li called his own dynasty Tang and saw it as a restoration of the Tang proper, a claim that wrenched legitimacy away from the Later Liang.Footnote 20 In accordance with its “restoration”, the Later Tang re-adopted the phase of Earth.Footnote 21 Subsequent dynasties followed this decision, with the Later Jin as Metal, the Later Han as Water and the Later Zhou as Wood.Footnote 22 Since at the time the Song saw itself as having received the mandate from the Later Zhou, it adopted the following phase in the series, Fire.Footnote 23 Recognition of the legitimacy of the Later Zhou aided the Song in its early years, but this move technically denied legitimacy to the Later Liang.
After Zhao Chuiqing made his opinion known in 984, officials of the Department of State Affairs were gathered to discuss the issue. The recommendation brought forward by a group led by Xu Xuan endorsed the Song's original decision to adopt the phase of Fire. The group argued that Zhu Wen 朱溫 (r. 907–12) of the Later Liang had been a usurper comparable to Wang Mang 王莽 (r. 9–23). The Later Tang, established after the overthrow of the Later Liang and being a true restoration of the Tang, was thus correct to recognize the phase of Earth. Following this gave the Later Jin Metal, the Later Han Water and the Later Zhou Wood, with the Song having Fire. If the mandate did not agree with the intentions of heaven, they reasoned in their decision, how could it be that since the founding of the dynasty and the adoption of Fire twenty-five years earlier, harvests had been bounteous and war had ended? Arguing against a revision, Xu and the other officials also drew attention to Tang precedent. In the eighth century, Cui Chang 崔昌 (d. 761) had recommended that the Tang proclaim that it had received the mandate from the Han, since none of the dynasties from the Wei to the Sui deserved to be considered legitimate.Footnote 24 This position was followed after receiving endorsement from Wei Bao 衛包 (fl. 750–52) and Li Linfu 李林甫 (683–752). But following the death of Li Linfu, both Cui Chang and Wei Bao were demoted to regional postings and the decision was rescinded. Recognition was then restored to the Wei, Zhou and Sui dynasties in the state sacrifices.Footnote 25 This demonstrated that a revision of the Song's adoption of Fire was unnecessary.
By urging the Song to accept the phase of Fire, the group making the recommendation accepted the Song's initial view of its own history. This position did not directly address the position of the Southern Tang, but if the dynasties of Later Jin, Later Han and Later Zhou had held the mandate of heaven, this would have included suzerainty over the Southern Tang. Needless to say, the Southern Tang as restoration of the Tang proper is likely to have recognized Earth as its ruling phase,Footnote 26 just as it recognized Gaozu 高祖 (r. 618–626) and Taizong 太宗 (r. 626–649) of the Tang proper in the state cult.Footnote 27
Judgements pronounced in an official capacity do not provide the best evidence for assessing a personal position.Footnote 28 Xu Xuan's involvement in the assessment of the proper phase for the Song was part of his duty to this dynasty, but works he produced under the Song in other contexts provide a different view. For example, in his tomb inscriptions for the last ruler of the Southern Tang, Li Yu, and his brother Li Congshan 李從善 (940–987), he claimed that the Southern Tang was heir to the rule of the Tang proper.Footnote 29 The implication of this is that the Southern Tang held some form of legitimacy until the rise of the Song. A further complication is that since Li Yu reigned from 961 to 976, Xu was endorsing the Southern Tang's existence in the years after the establishment of Song in 960. Yet Xu also praised the achievements of the Song emperors in these two texts. He claimed that the Southern Tang willingly placed itself in a subordinate position to the Song when it gained the mandate of heaven. Here positions potentially contradictory are combined by what might be judged a careful misrepresentation of past events. Elsewhere in Xu's works too, diverging views presented in different contexts are not necessarily incompatible if understood in terms of Xu's career. They instead draw attention to the strategies Xu used for navigating issues of the past to the satisfaction of himself and the court.
Dating and titles
Dating events of the tenth century is not straightforward since the choice of reign period can be an indication of the legitimate regime in the estimation of any author. Similarly, refusal to use reign titles is an expression of resistance to a ruling house.Footnote 30 The term “Five Dynasties” is a result of the Song's inheritance of their rule in the north and subsequent unification of the empire, a view which has dominated understanding of the period to the present. Yet of the southern states in the tenth century, Wu, the Southern Tang, the Southern Han, Shu and Min claimed the mandate of rule for themselves. In contrast, Wuyue and Chu continued to offer symbolic tribute to the northern dynasties and received in return imperial confirmation of titles for positions that they controlled themselves.
Sima Guang 司馬光 (1019–86) used the reign titles of the northern dynasties in Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑒. He argued that he did not recognize their legitimacy and this was merely a practical solution to a difficult problem. But this choice for the sake of convenience still gives the northern dynasties greater legitimacy than states elsewhere.Footnote 31 Tellingly, Sima referred to “emperors” in the north, but called men in the south who claimed this title simply “ruler” (zhu 主). Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) also refused to recognize the legitimacy of any court between the Tang and the Song but saw Sima Guang's practical solution as flawed. In his Zizhi tongjian gangmu 資治通鑒綱目, Zhu chose instead not to include any reign period under the jiazi 甲子 identifier for each year for periods of division when he judged that no regime had achieved legitimacy, but listed the dates used by various regimes as commentary.Footnote 32 But unsurprisingly, in such lists for the Five Dynasties period those of the northern dynasties appear first.
Dating within individual works could also be inconsistent depending on the topic being addressed. The text now called Jiu Wudai shi 舊五代史 uses Later Liang reign periods for the years 907–922 in the annals of the Later Liang, but in the annals of the Later Tang the same years are denoted with the Tianyou 天祐 reign period of the Tang proper.Footnote 33 The hurried circumstances of the work's composition may have prompted its compilers to accept details preserved in the relevant records uncritically, since large portions of historical material were included with little editing. Produced early in the Song prior to the subjugation of many minor states, this work was aimed at serving the political goals of the new dynasty. Notably, Jiu Wudai shi is also less critical of the Later Liang for vanquishing the Tang dynasty than are some later works,Footnote 34 although any conclusions concerning this work must be tempered by knowledge that the current edition is a reconstruction dating from the Qing.
The problem of dating was not limited to later historians. People under the states of Wu and the Southern Tang faced difficulties at the time, further complicating records produced in retrospect. The use of reign titles in these states depended largely on their own strength relative to the contemporary regime in the north. The Later Liang, although established in 907, was unable to extend its control far beyond the northern plain. While 907 traditionally marks the end of the Tang proper, the Jianghuai region continued to use the last Tang reign title of Tianyou until 918, expressing a refusal to accept the legitimacy of the regime of Zhu Wen. Tianyou was finally abandoned with the formal establishment of a Wu reign title in 919, the delay suggesting a reluctance to provoke other holders of power in a still unstable region. Only when confident enough to do so did Xu Wen 徐溫 (862–927), the effective ruler, elevate Wu from a dependency to a state in its own right, with the descendants of Yang Xingmi 楊行密 (852–905) as the ruling house. Even then, the nominal ruler of Wu did not adopt the title emperor until 927.
Decades later, after suffering defeat at the hands of the Later Zhou, the Southern Tang ceded territory north of the Yangzi River and dropped the use of its own reign titles and imperial regalia in its dealings with the northern state to demonstrate its subordinate position. Yet symbolic resistance continued. In describing the inscription on a Buddhist temple on Lushan 廬山, Ma Yongqing 馬永卿 (jinshi 1109) explained that although from 958 the Southern Tang formally used the reign titles of the Later Zhou followed by the Song, Southern Tang scholars found this shameful. Since their own state lacked reign titles after 958, they used instead the jiazi cycle for identifying years in their works.Footnote 35 Yet this was not always the case, as demonstrated by an inscription for a Buddhist temple dated to 967 which paradoxically uses a Song reign period prefixed with the title “Tang”.Footnote 36 Other combinations also appear to have been possible. Ouyang Xiu noted a date on a stele by Wang Wenbing 王文秉 (fl. 946–61) – incidentally an associate of Xu Xuan – given as the “gengshen year of the Great Tang” 大唐庚申 (960).Footnote 37 Furthermore, in 974 as the Southern Tang came under attack from the Song, the court ordered that use of the Song reign title Kaibao 開寳 be discontinued. According to this decree, thenceforth all documents, public and private, were to use only the jiazi system for dating.Footnote 38
Evidence in Xu Xuan's collected works supports Ma's assertion. Xu Xuan himself compiled a collection in twenty juan of his own works written before the end of the Southern Tang. After his death, ten further juan containing works dating from his time in service to the Song were arranged by Wu Shu 吳淑 (947–1002), his son-in-law, and Hu Keshun 胡克順 (fl. 989–1017), a member of the family that attended to Xu's posthumous affairs. The two parts were put together by Chen Pengnian 陳彭年 (961–1017) in 993.Footnote 39 The differences between the two sections are readily explainable as acts of Xu himself, and not any later editing, since the two sections are consistent in their differences. Notably, the collection was presented to the throne in 1017 by Hu Keshun, who evidently felt no need to make them consistent. In texts written in years prior to 958, Xu consistently used Southern Tang reign titles,Footnote 40 whereas for works written in the period 958–975, Xu used jiazi years.Footnote 41 The two exceptions are dated with Song reign titles to 970 and the last months of 974. The latter at least may be the result of acquiescence in the face of the immediate threat presented by the Song, but would be ironic considering the instruction from the court at this time to discontinue use of northern reign titles.Footnote 42
Texts Xu wrote during his service to the Song unsurprisingly use the relevant Song reign title. When writing of dates in the past, Xu also predominantly used Song reign titles for the years one is available, i.e. years after 960. Only very occasionally did he use the jiazi system for dating a year within this period.Footnote 43 When referring to dates under earlier northern dynasties, Xu's method of dating shifted. For example, in a text commemorating the life of a Chan master, Xu Xuan used Song reign periods for years after 960 but the jiazi system for identifying all years prior to 960.Footnote 44 Among northern dynasties, Xu evidently only felt a need to acknowledge the Song.
This is not consistent with the usage in existing portions of Jishen lu 稽神錄, Xu's collection of records concerning strange events, gods and ghosts.Footnote 45 The material in this work dates to under the Southern Tang. While its preface (now lost) appears to have indicated that it was written in the period 945–955, some items date to slightly later than this, indicating that Xu might have added material after he first completed it.Footnote 46 For events up to 918, this collection predominantly uses reign titles of the Tang proper,Footnote 47 the few exceptions using simply the jiazi year.Footnote 48 The legitimacy of the Tang proper, even for an extended period as used in the south, does not appear to have been an issue for Xu or his Song peers. But dates in the period 919–957, for which Wu and the Southern Tang had reign titles, are denoted with only the jiazi for the year in question.Footnote 49 This stands in contrast to Xu's other works dating from under the Southern Tang, which used a Southern Tang reign title with the year number or the jiazi designation. For example, the year 957 appears in Jishen lu with the designation xinhai 辛亥, whereas his other works give the date as Baoda xinhai 保大辛亥 or Baoda shinian 保大十年.Footnote 50
Northern reign titles appear only four times in Jishen lu, and these in very specific circumstances. Two accounts contain a Later Zhou reign period, with the dates 955 and 956, but both contain references to the Later Zhou's attack on the Southern Tang.Footnote 51 Another account referring to events under the Later Liang uses this state's reign titles,Footnote 52 while a further account recording events under the Min uses reign titles of both the Later Liang and the Later Tang.Footnote 53 These examples stand in contrast to all other accounts which refer to the relevant years with simply the jiazi designation.Footnote 54 The surviving remnant of the preface to this work too uses only jiazi years to refer to the period in which the work was supposedly written, 945–955.Footnote 55
The absence of Southern Tang reign titles from Jishen lu reveals the hand of later editing. Quoting Ma Yongqing, the Siku quanshu 四庫全書 editors believed that for dates up until 955, Jishen lu would have originally used Southern Tang reign titles but these were removed by Xu upon entering the service of the Song.Footnote 56 Since Xu was involved in the compilation of the Taiping guangji 太平廣記 – from which modern editions of Jishen lu have been compiled – the decision to remove southern reign titles before inclusion in the work may have been his own. Even if Xu did not make the changes himself, he is likely to have been aware of them. The alteration of its contents indicates that problems with dating in Jishen lu were recognized at the time. The presence of northern reign titles is more perplexing, although at least for the events under the Later Liang, their use does place events in their local context.
One very slight piece of evidence suggests that although accounts in the collection were edited for inclusion in Taiping guangji, independently circulating copies of the work retained the original notation for dating. One account from Jishen lu appearing in the early twelfth-century compilation Lei shuo 類說 refers to an event occurring “during the Taihe 太和 reign period”.Footnote 57 In Taiping guangji the same account instead refers to the gengyin year 庚寅, i.e. 930. The year 930 was the second year of Wu's Dahe 大和 reign period (929–35), a difference of a single stroke.Footnote 58 If this a reference to Dahe in Jishen lu, the greater specificity of the account in Taiping guangji (i.e. 930) is not easily reconcilable with the general period given in Lei shuo (929–35), unless perhaps Xu Xuan himself was involved in the editing and chose to provide more specific information. But many of the accounts from Jishen lu in Lei shuo appear to have been abbreviated, perhaps by the compiler Zeng Zao 曾慥 (1091–1155). Thus this evidence is attractive but not conclusive. In another example, this time in Taiping guangji, a scribal error may have accidently obscured a reference to a reign title of Wu, allowing it to escape editorial intervention, but again this is unclear.Footnote 59
In addition to dating, the Siku quanshu editors also identify the terms referring to Wu and the Southern Tang in Jishen lu as signs of later changes. Throughout the work, the Southern Tang is consistently referred to as “Jiangnan” 江南.Footnote 60 The term could conceivably be interpreted as a simple geographic reference in some items, but in the majority of cases it is clearly a reference to the Southern Tang. The use of Jiangnan as a humbling term for this state of the south was forced on it by the Later Zhou in 958 and continued by the Song.Footnote 61 After 976, use of this and other euphemisms for the Southern Tang was common. Works of the early Song addressing the history of the Southern Tang carry the label Jiangnan, as well as Jiangzuo 江左 and Jiangbiao 江表.Footnote 62 The reference to region rather than title acknowledges the Southern Tang's regional limitations and denies it the status of an independent state. Xu's writings dating from his service to the Southern Tang do not appear to use this terminology in this context.Footnote 63Jishen lu also refers to Wu with the term “illegitimate Wu” (wei Wu 偽吳),Footnote 64 and very occasionally titles for officials under the Southern Tang too are prefaced by “illegitimate” (wei 偽). While this allows differentiation between the two southern states, it also avoids referring to the Southern Tang as “illegitimate”. We might note here that the term “Southern Tang” is of later date.Footnote 65 Xu referred to northern dynasties in Jishen lu by name very rarely, but the Later Liang is the only northern regime that he referred to pejoratively, labelling it a “bandit” regime.Footnote 66
The Southern Tang referred to itself as a “restoration” (zhongxing 中興) of the Tang proper, marking its new beginning in the south. This term was commonly used to infer both continuity and differentiation from the Tang properFootnote 67 and Xu Xuan was no exception.Footnote 68 The term was also briefly used for a reign period in early 958.Footnote 69 After the first ruler Li Bian 李昪 (r. 937–43) died, he was given the posthumous temple title of Liezu 烈祖, which recognized his special place within the Tang's southern reincarnation, since the title “zu” was normally reserved for a dynasty's founding emperor, in this case Gaozu of the Tang proper.Footnote 70 Xu Xuan referred to Li Jing 李璟, or Yuanzong 元宗 (r. 943–61), during his rule as the “succeeding lord of the restoration” (zhongxing zhi sijun 中興之嗣君)Footnote 71 and the rule of Li Yu as the third era of the restoration.Footnote 72 A limited degree of authority is granted to the intervening state of Wu, since Xu described Wu as “yielding” to the Southern Tang.Footnote 73 Thus it both had the authority to yield and yielded it to the proper successor.
Very few examples of Xu's use of the term “restoration” date from under the Song.Footnote 74 More commonly he described the state based in Jinling as the “Lesser Tang” (ji Tang 季唐).Footnote 75 Furthermore, under the Song, Xu shifted his view of the three centuries of Tang rule, moving them firmly into the past. In works of the Southern Tang, reign periods of the Tang proper stand alone since the mandate of the Tang was still current,Footnote 76 but upon entering the Song, Xu prefaced such dates with the state title of “Tang”.Footnote 77 These appear in texts alongside simple jiazi years for dates under the Southern Tang, which apparently under the Song were no longer worthy of association with the Tang proper.Footnote 78 Interestingly but unsurprisingly, a text written by the Prefect of Yuanzhou in 925 refers to the Tianyou reign period of the “former dynasty” (xian chao 先朝).Footnote 79 This suggests that after adopting its own reign titles, Wu did not identify with the Tang proper as the Southern Tang would do later.
The choice of titles for emperors of the Southern Tang appears to have been a matter for deliberation among later historians, as indeed it is for anyone writing about the Southern Tang today. References produced under the Southern Tang for deceased emperors used the relevant temple names, i.e. Liezu for Li Bian and Yuanzong for Li Jing. They also appear to have been acceptable for works of a much later date, to which is added the stopgap of “last ruler” (houzhu 後主) for Li Yu.Footnote 80 Dying when no longer emperor, Li Yu did not gain a temple name. But these titles were not acceptable to historians who refused to recognize the Southern Tang as a legitimate state. Ouyang Xiu and Sima Guang referred to these rulers by their given names; Sima also used “ruler of the Tang” (tangzhu 唐主). Owing to the popularity of their poetry, the last two emperors were also known subsequently in the world of letters by their names of Li Jing and Li Yu, but such familiar terms of reference would have been unthinkable for anyone who had actually served under them.
Prior to 976, Xu referred to the first two emperors after their passing with the titles LiezuFootnote 81 and Yuanzong,Footnote 82 and similarly referred to Xu Wen (Li Bian's foster father and de facto ruler of Wu) with the title Yizu 義祖.Footnote 83 Writing under the Song, Xu Xuan maintained his respect for these rulers with more discrete terms. He referred to Liezu as the “founding ruler” (xianzhu 先主). Yuanzong was still the “succeeding lord” (sijun 嗣君),Footnote 84 whose period of rule was “the second era of the lesser Tang”, and Li Yu was “the last ruler” (houzhu 後主).Footnote 85
Given that Xu's collected works include his earlier texts in what appears to be their unaltered state, complete with the temple names and reign periods of Southern Tang emperors, the thorough editing of Jishen lu might have been deemed necessary for its inclusion within the “new” Song compilation that was Taiping guangji, since substantial editing did take place for political or stylistic reasons.Footnote 86 Such changes may have been unnecessary for copies of Jishen lu circulating as an independent work. In any case, Xu's efforts to avoid offending Song sensibilities in works written and used under the Song stand in contrast to the contents of the work of his son-in-law Wu Shu, who also served on the board of compilers of Taiping guangji. Wu's Jianghuai yiren lu 江淮異人錄, although produced under the Song,Footnote 87 uses the appropriate temple names for all rulers of Wu and the Southern TangFootnote 88 as well as Southern Tang reign titles.Footnote 89 These differences may be the result of some distinction in either Wu Shu's personal circumstances or in the different circulation and transmission of his work, which does not appear in Taiping guangji.
Despite his involvement in the compilation project, there is one slight indication that the editing in Jishen lu was not from Xu Xuan's own hand. In one account, a certain official is said to have served in a given position when “Li Bian was in power”.Footnote 90 Taken as is, this reference is startling. Xu Xuan appears to have referred to the founder of the Southern Tang by his given name. Not only would the affront of using the founding emperor's personal name not have been permitted in a text written under the Southern Tang but, as demonstrated above, Xu Xuan continued to avoid its use under the Song. The appearance of “Li Bian” may have been the result of a straightforward editorial adjustment for the officially commissioned Taiping guangji. Only in Li Yu's tomb epitaph did Xu Xuan, according to the dictates of custom for referring to the deceased in such a work, include the personal name of a Southern Tang ruler.Footnote 91
Finding past models of rule
The authority of the past has been used throughout Chinese history to justify affairs in the present,Footnote 92 yet the precedents that Xu used in his temple inscriptions for periods of model rule in the past undergo an understandable shift. Under the Southern Tang, Xu drew examples not only from antiquity but also from the Tang proper to illustrate the propriety of contemporary rule, often invoking specific periods and rulers. This identified the court in Jinling with the achievements of three centuries of Tang rule. After 976, these references are largely absent from texts Xu wrote for official consumption, in which he sought instead to raise the Song to a pre-eminent status by looking predominantly to the distant, symbolic past.
Before 976, as a representative of the Tang in its new southern incarnation, Xu looked to what were traditionally considered high periods of the Tang proper for models of enlightened rule in accordance with the Way to glorify achievements in the present. In an inscription for the re-establishment of a mountain sanctuary on Maoshan 茅山, Xu referred to the reign periods of Kaiyuan 開元 (713–741) and Tianbao 天寶 (742–755).Footnote 93 These decades of the eighth century were considered to embody the flourishing of Tang rule and, fittingly for an inscription for a significant Daoist site, also mark an era during which Daoism benefitted from the patronage of Xuanzong 玄宗 (r. 712–756). The re-establishment of the sanctuary, which prohibited activities such as hunting and woodcutting, was also a return to Tang precedent, since a sanctuary on this mountain had first been established in 833.Footnote 94 Yet this did not prevent Xu from noting in his poetry the decay suffered by Maoshan's Daoist institutions, which compared the present less favourably with Tang achievements.Footnote 95
Reverence for the Tang can also be found in a stele Xu wrote in 947 for a new temple to Confucius established in Jingxian 涇縣 of Xuanzhou 宣州.Footnote 96 Here the Tang itself was linked to the distant past. Xu wrote that Confucius looked to Yao and Shun and modelled himself after Kings Wen and Wu of the Zhou in order to uphold the Way for later generations. People of poor ability failed to understand the Way and so the doctrine waned in the Warring States and after the Han and Wei dynasties. Yet Xu claimed that the Way was followed again during the Tang. Due to the context, the reign periods mentioned to inspire reverence differ from those in the previous Daoist example.Footnote 97 The doctrine of the Way, Xu wrote, rose in the Wude 武德 reign period (618–26), flourished in the Zhenguan 貞觀 reign period (626–49) and reached the ultimate extent of Confucian rule during the Kaiyuan reign period. These three reign periods are symbolic of successful rule, referring to the reigns of Gaozu, Taizong and Xuanzong respectively. After noting these periods of success, Xu then lamented that the Way again fell following the rise of disorder, a reference to events in the second half of Tang rule. Xu claimed that because of a lack of reverence for the vessels of the rites in subsequent times, few temples survived. Yet with the re-establishment of Tang imperial rule and the restoration of the rites, the temple could now be rebuilt according to the model of the Kaiyuan reign period. The Southern Tang is thus on a par with the dynasty it claimed to continue.
In another inscription for a Confucius temple, this time in Shuzhou 舒州, Xu cast his eyes back to the period immediately prior to the Tang, the formative years of significant figures of the early years of the dynasty.Footnote 98 While undated, Li Fang indicated that this work was written during Xu's period of banishment to Shuzhou from 953 to 955.Footnote 99 Xu opened the inscription by referring to Wenzhongzi 文中子, an appellation for Wang Tong 王通 (584?–617). Wang Tong was a controversial Confucian figure of the Sui dynasty. His recorded thought, somewhat out of step with the trends of his time, emphasizes the need for moral rule as opposed to laws and the need for new literary works rather than just commentaries on the classics.Footnote 100 Works attributed to Wang Tong address the teachings of Confucius and the meaning of the classics.Footnote 101 Although Wang Tong himself is believed to have died before the Tang was established, he reputedly contributed to the education of the first generation of scholars to serve the new dynasty. By starting this inscription with reference to Wang Tong, Xu highlighted the moral rule established by the Tang. Xu named four men who had the fortune to serve a “true ruler” (zhen zhu 真主). These four were significant ministers of the early Tang, serving under Gaozu and Taizong.Footnote 102 All are named as disciples of Wang Tong in a text which, according to modern scholarship, exaggerates Wang Tong's influence under the Sui dynasty in laying the foundations of the Tang's success.Footnote 103 Xu's emphasis on the intellectual achievements of Wang Tong thus constituted praise for the achievements of the early Tang, when the purported students of Wang Tong reached the height of their influence.Footnote 104 Xu rejected any suggestion that Wang Tong's teachings were not realized, yet claimed that even greater achievements would have been possible if Taizong had ministers like Confucius' disciples Yan Hui 顔回 and Min Ziqian 閔子騫. Xu's focus on the Tang shifted to its southern incarnation later in the text, with the actions of local officials to re-establish benevolent local rule framed in the “the restoration of the August Tang”.Footnote 105 Xu thus equated the purported contributions of Wang Tong to the early years of Tang rule with the establishment of the restored dynasty in Jinling.
Such references to the Tang proper are absent from Xu's surviving works dated from his service to the Song. Two temple inscriptions from this period stand out for their hyperbole and tone. Since these were for temples in regions Xu Xuan does not appear ever to have visited, they were likely commissioned by the Song court under Taizong as part of its attempt to consolidate its rule throughout the empire, likely akin to fifty-two inscriptions that officials were ordered to produce for temples throughout the empire in 972 to celebrate the reign of Taizu as part of a programme involving the repair of existing temples and the establishment of new ones.Footnote 106 Both were also perhaps sites of portents exalting the reign of Taizong. One was for a Daoist temple in Fengxiang 鳳翔 which saw the descent of the Black Killer 黑煞 with predictions of Taizong's ascension and the other for a Buddhist temple on Emeishan 峨眉山 in Sichuan, possibly the site of the appearance of arhats in 984.Footnote 107
Xu commenced the Fengxiang inscription by considering the role of the sages in the first ordering of the world after its formation in antiquity. Xu followed existing models, akin to those offered in the “Liyun” 禮運 chapter of Li ji 禮記. The sages brought order by producing the eight trigrams of Yijing and established differences of rank among the people. Xu then compared the Song's reception of the mandate of heaven to the ascent of the sun.Footnote 108 The significance of the temple becomes apparent when we learn that at the “beginning of the current calendar”, i.e. the beginning of the Song, an emissary from heaven descended to the region of the temple, i.e. the Black Killer, a deity capable of dispelling demons.Footnote 109 This positive omen was a result of the Song's beneficent rule. This is followed by the claim that Taizu and Taizong were responding to the will of heaven in establishing the state. Xu then described the achievements of these two emperors, the latter receiving the greater praise through comparison with the King of Zhou and the Xia dynasty.Footnote 110 This outshines the depictions in Xu's earlier works of the emperors of the Southern Tang, who are compared instead primarily with illustrious “ancestors” ruling during the prosperous years of the Tang proper. The remaining portions of the inscription, including details of the location and structure of the actual temple and platitudes for Daoism, are all subsidiary to the praise for the first two emperors of the Song. Furthermore, in contrast to the content of the majority of Xu's temple inscriptions, here the characteristics of the local region are of only minor importance.
Extravagant praise without recourse to recent history also constitutes the content of the inscription for the Buddhist temple on Emeishan. Here Xu referred to the first two emperors of the Song as sages. Their rule brought benefits to the region, a tangible example of which was the repair of this temple which honoured Samantabhadra, a key bodhisattva in Mahāyāna Buddhism. Xu downplayed Taizu's achievements in the region, again giving Taizong the greater praise, outstripping even his tribute to Samantabhadra. Xu Xuan recognized that Buddhist doctrine could “aid in the peace of the Way of the king, and extend benevolence and long life to living things”. The achievements of this bodhisattva are subsequently juxtaposed with those of the Song emperors, who emerge as the real focus of the text, despite Xu's thin veneer of engagement with religious concepts. In another contrast to the personal experiences and relationships that appear in Xu's inscriptions for temples within the Southern Tang's territory, the knowledge of events that appears for Sichuan in this text is historical, not contemporary. In appraising this region with which he had no personal experience, Xu again looked to the remote past.
Xu addressed the shift to Song rule in an inscription for a temple to Confucius dated to the year 985. Its tone and content are somewhat different from his two earlier inscriptions for temples honouring Confucius composed under the Southern Tang, which contain no hint of otherworldly events. Without mention of the recent past, it opens with the statement that Confucius had the abilities of Duke of Zhou but since he did not meet with the time of King Wen, he transmitted his Way to later generations in the form of written texts. Xu asserted that the spirit of Confucius' teachings could be understood without words and many dreamt of it, thus proving that the Way remained unchanged despite the passage of time. If one penetrated its spirit, Xu wrote, anyone could dream of Confucius. Due to this direct connection to the correct doctrine, scholars and the learned could all contribute to the great transformation with a unity of purpose.Footnote 111 The significance of this assertion on dreams becomes apparent when attention in the work switches to an individual Xu Xuan styled Xu jun 徐君.Footnote 112 He carried out virtuous acts within his clan and performed the duties of a scholar-official for the benefit of the common people so that his name was known throughout the district. Although he failed to gain high position, his eldest son was raised to “cultivated talent” (xiucai 秀才) by the prefecture, after which he chose to pursue personal cultivation. It was then that he had a dream that caused him to re-engage with local affairs. In the dream, he was saved from a boat sinking in the Huai River by a host of gentlemen (junzi 君子) who took him to a temple to Confucius. Awakening from this dream, he had “a strong desire to achieve practical good”. The following year Taizong came to the throne, ushering in a period of regeneration in the empire. The protagonist Xu took the opportunity to use his personal funds to repair the temple, upon which it again became a place of instruction and learning. This local reinstatement of the teaching of Confucius, prompted in a dream, was brought about by benevolent rule in the form of a Song emperor. It was the sign of an entirely new beginning in the manner of the ancients, not a mere restoration.
Despite such praise for the Song, Xu continued to write extensively for the south after the fall of the Southern Tang. The majority of the temple inscriptions in Xu Xuan's collected works dating from after 976 were in fact for temples in regions previously controlled by his old state. Xu also wrote a number of epitaphs for men who had served in the south. As a renowned literary figure of the Southern Tang with first-hand knowledge of the history of this state, Xu's compositions appear to have been valued in southern circles, since he recorded in some that they had been produced upon request. For some southerners at least, Xu's reputation appears to have survived the transition to northern service. In these privately produced writings, Xu recorded the history and personalities of the Southern Tang, making plain his personal attachments. Figures that appear in these works were personal acquaintances or active in places Xu had visited. Records of this nature inevitably involved celebration of the region. Relevant memories were unavoidably tied in his mind to the state, with events before the Song conquest recalled in positive terms. The state itself received indirect praise for what Xu saw as its preservation of Tang values. For example, in an epitaph for Wang Kezhen 王克貞 (930–989), Xu wrote: “From the decline of the Tang house, the Way was lost from the realm of words; Jiangnan extended the prosperity, continuing deference to the established regulations”. In other words, Xu still claimed that the Southern Tang upheld the Way while the rest of the empire fell into disorder.Footnote 113 Similarly, in a text for the Daoist Ni Shaotong 倪少通 (900–990), Xu recorded that, following the fall in the fortunes of the Tang proper, the “dark primordial wind” blew and the “the doctrine of the pure and still” was restored in the territory of the Lower Yangzi, i.e. in the Southern Tang.Footnote 114 Writing under the Song, Xu thus maintained his positive appraisals of the Southern Tang and its rulers, but expressed them indirectly and in works produced in a private capacity for a southern audience.
Conclusion
In his study of Wang Renyu 王仁裕 (880–956), Glen Dudbridge has demonstrated that any voices from the tenth century are invaluable for understanding how the period was experienced and serve as a counterweight to the influence of judgements on this period produced in later centuries for their own purposes.Footnote 115 Just as with Wang Renyu, the transition between one state and the next for Xu was not lacking in trauma or challenges. The issue of dynastic legitimacy reveals some of the practical questions that an official in Xu's position had to address.
While the option of service to a new dynasty was possible, the decision to do so was not the end of the matter. Xu's feeling for the Southern Tang did not simply evaporate following a purported audience with Taizu. Nor did official embrace of the Song require outright rejection of a vision not fully in accordance with this dynasty's view of recent history. Xu fulfilled the obligations of service in his works, but they also display varying contours in his view of the past and its relationship to his present. The sentiment Xu expressed about the Southern Tang after 976 was clearly mediated by the Song, but it was not totally dominated by it. Xu plotted a course through the past that did justice to his loyalty to both the Southern Tang and the Song. Alterations in terminology and tone were necessary to avoid infringements of official interpretations, but Xu preserved reverence for the Southern Tang without challenging Song legitimacy.
In serving a new dynasty, Xu was left to negotiate the varying claims on his devotion. The varying positions expressed in any particular case as determined by audience and context reflect the realities of life for an official maintaining his ties to his homeland while still seriously shouldering the responsibilities of the new order. These contexts also demonstrate the circles in which Xu Xuan was able to think, be it as an old southerner or among serving scholar-officials. These divisions appear to have allowed flexibility for him as an individual. Differences of context faced by officials more generally are also reflected in the variations in editing for texts in different forms. The careful editing apparent in Jishen lu, an officially compiled work, is not apparent in Xu's collected works (as it is not in Wu Shu's work either). Significantly, the outlook expressed in one text is not enough to determine the complexity of an individual's views. Xu's works, even if divided between the Southern Tang and the Song, should not be taken as presenting a unified vision of the past at any particular time, but rather as a collection of fragments that could be arranged as required. This reflects the contradictory array of impulses produced by the breaks in Xu's experiences, which could be accommodated through varied expression in different situations. Any attempt to understand his view of the past must embrace the porous nature of these breaks for the individual, rather than seeking to reach an understanding informed by a single fragment of experience which does not allow for overlap and inconsistency. Even though presented to the throne, his collected works appear to preserve Xu's various attempts to make sense of his own past.
