Author(s)
This reflection was written post-mortem in 2021:
Writing the midterm essay was my first few exposures to primary source analysis as a Year 1 History major. It took a while for me to formulate my thoughts and articulate them properly. However, this opportunity proved helpful in the remainder of my undergraduate years. Although we were only required to read and respond to one source, reading the all the sources was extremely fun as a Year 1 student passionate about imperial Chinese history.
The following work was submitted for a mid-term exercise where students chose a primary text to analyse. This student chose to respond to the prompt, “Discuss how Chinese official histories describe rebellions.”
For her primary text, she looked at: “ ‘Uprising,’ Patricia Ebrey, Chinese Civilization: A Source Book, pp. 83-85.”
Patricia Ebey’s chapter on Uprisings is made up of ‘three slightly divergent accounts’ of mainly two religious leaders, Zhang Jue and Zhang Lu, and the uprisings that they staged recorded in ‘three histories of the period’ (p.83). These religious uprisings were greatly influenced by ‘members of a new religious movement, the Daoists’.[1] This essay posits that Chinese official histories’ descriptions of rebellions were extremely rhetorical in nature aiming to paint these rebellions as led by heretics. Therefore, I will be closely analyzing the text through two characters of rhetoric; partisan and meaningful.[2] Meaning is brought out through the tone of the text serving as a ‘mode of mediation’ to introduce and ‘sustain emotional affiliation’.[3] Partiality is noted through gaps caused by ‘unmaterialized counterparts’ of the text that is deemed to be less ‘important, correct or normal’.[4]
The largely biased tone against the rebel leaders is a common trend across the three records. The first record on Zhang Jue condemned Jue for ‘propagating [his] delusion’ and for ‘falsely proclaim[ing]’ that the year 184 would be a favorable one for the whole world (pp.83 and 84). Similarly, in the second record, Zhang Xiu and Jue’s similar teachings were deemed as ‘wanton pervasion’ used to deceive simple people (p.84). Lastly, in the final record, Zhang Ling’s book was deemed to be ‘deluding the common people’ and his religion that was passed to his grandson, Lu, was a ‘demonical religion’ (p.85). The constant use of such strong accusatory language dilutes the credibility of the sources. It becomes obvious that this strategical selection of words is meant to evoke hatred amongst readers even centuries on from the rebellions. It encourages and convinces future generations of Chinese to not yield to the teachings of such radicalized rebel leaders in their own time. The text further evidences the heretical nature of the rebellion by pointing out the possible sexual immoralities that may have plagued the ranks of the rebels. This is done through pointing out that Xiu appointed “debauchers” and mentioning Lu’s ‘somewhat attractive’ mother who ‘became a frequent visitor to Liu Yan’s house’ (pp. 84 and 85), implying a possible illicit relationship between the two. Additionally, all three records also provide examples of their wrongdoings. Jue’s followers were recorded to have ‘burned government buildings and pillaged villages and towns’ and had caused the ‘whole country’ to rise up in ten days (p.84). Lu’s followers similarly were noted for killing ‘all the representatives sent by the central government’ (p.85). These evidences helped to sustain the disgust felt by readers towards the rebels as they read through each record, therefore enforcing the idea amongst the later generations that rebellions served only to disrupt the peace and they should not be easily deceived into participating in them unknowingly.
The partisan nature of the text is brought out by the differences of what is included and what is not between the three records. These discrepancies across the three records and even within the individual records points towards their tendentious nature. Both the first and second records had documented the rebellion led by Jue, however the second excludes details of the rebellion simply concluding that Jue was eventually executed (p.84). As such the focus of the second record is likely to emphasize the eventual downfall of these heretic rebel leaders rather than their specific actions. By only mentioning his origins and end paints Jue as yet another unsuccessful rebel, attributing his failure to the heterodoxy he perpetuates. This warns readers against straying onto Jue’s path, encouraging them to instead remain loyal to the dynasty which helps to maintain peace in the state. Within the third record, a discrepancy in the portrayal of Lu is noted as well. Previously, it was noted that in the third record, Lu was practicing a ‘demonical religion’ and it was also implied that he had used his mother as a sexual tool to lure the governor of the Yi province, Liu Yan, to practice his religion (p.85). However, in the same record Lu is said to have ‘acted benevolently, teaching his religion and establishing charity houses stocked with meat and grain’ (p.85). It was also mentioned that he had been made a general by Cao Cao and his sons enfeoffed as feudal lords. This contradiction in the description of Lu’s nature could possibly be an effort at portraying rebel leaders in a more objective way. More importantly, this slightly more appealing side of Lu was excluded in the second record raising the question of why it was left out. Therefore, it is clear that overall the individual records are partisan in nature and suggests that Chinese historians had strategically picked certain information over others to portray rebel leaders as often more detrimental to the state than beneficial.
To conclude, it is clear that Chinese official histories had described rebellions as being led by radical dissidents who beguiled their followers that were portrayed as simpletons and thus easily fooled into practicing a heterodoxic religion. In doing so, the agenda of the state-approved histories was clear; to prevent more rebellions in future. The presence of rebellions was one possible indication that the ruler had lost the ‘Mandate of Heaven’. As such, it is of no surprise that state leaders over time would come to notice that and attempt to curb potential roots of rebellions as early as possible. History is studied by those who could afford education but at the same time also made known to the population through anecdotes or stories passed from one generation to the other. Portraying rebellions in this manner thus enable the state to constantly enforce a distaste for rebellions. With clear motives behind the writing of these records, the official histories are undoubtedly rhetorical.
Endnotes
[1] Valerie Hansen, The Open Empire A History of China to 1800 2nd Edition (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2015), 133
[2] Carole Blair, Greg Dickinson, and Brian L. Ott, “Introduction Rhetoric/Memory/Place”, in Places of Public Memory (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2010.), 2
[3] Ibid, 3.
[4] Ibid, 4.