Zhang Tingyu and Reconciliation: The Scholar and the State in the Early Qianlong Reign

Vol. 7, No. 1 Late Imperial ChinaJune 1986 ZHANG TINGYU AND RECONCILIATION: THE SCHOLAR AND THE STATE IN THE EARLY QIANLONG REIGN R. Kent Guy* The political styles associated with the reigns of the Yongzheng emperor and of his successor the Qianlong emperor present one of the most striking and suggestive contrasts in late imperial history. Perhaps no Qing emperor has piqued the historian's curiosity more than Yinzhen, the man who ruled as Yongzheng emperor from 1723 to 1735. The story of his rise to power has all the elements of a pot-boiler - violence, voodoo, murder and revenge - as the young and perhaps somewhat unstable prince eliminated rival claimants to his father's throne. Once in power, he embarked on an ambitious series of reforms which transformed bureaucratic communications, taxation, the administration of finance, and the organization of the army in remarkably modern directions, but which also generated significant hostility from China's landholders and powerholders .1 By contrast, the Qianlong emperor's rights of succession were apparently unquestioned, and when enthroned he seemed intent to make his reign a continuous celebration of the glories of the Chinese past and the harmony of relations between scholars and the state. Probably more important, many of the Yongzheng reforms were reshaped during the Qianlong reign, not so much by outright repudiation, as by subtle shifts in administrative goals and priorities. As the evidence below will show, the two monarchs not only had different styles of rule, but chose men of different political visions and different social backgrounds to serve them. This essay will begin the task of explaining the transition from Yongzheng I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the hospitality and research assistance of the staff of the First Historical Archives in Beijing, together with a grant from the Committee on Scholarly Communication with the PRC, which made this research possible. Useful critical comment came from Professors Beatrice S. Bartlett of Yale University and John Henderson of Louisiana State University, and the editors of Late Imperial China. 1 The nature of the Yongzheng succession has proven to be one of the most complex and recalcitrant issues of early modern Chinese history. For highlights of the discussion, see Meng, 1943, Wang, 1957: 147-193, and Wu, 1979. On the Yongzheng reforms, see Huang, 1974, Wu, 1970 and most recently Zelin, 1984. 50 Zhang Tingyu and Reconciliation51 to Qianlong and exploring its significance. The Yongzheng legacy became an issue in the earliest days of the Qianlong reign, and it was debated in terms of the moral and official obligations of those who served at court and in senior provincial office. Events in the early months of the Qianlong reign suggested, to those alert to their significance, the nature of the transition that was underway. Given the nature of the Chinese state, debate over political priorities often took disguised forms. Discussion of philosophy and political and administrative styles of behavior could become an oblique method for discussing issues of policy, and the Chinese courtier became adept at reading the political significance of gossip. The moment of imperial succession provided a natural opening for a break with the policies of the previous ruler, but in a Confucian setting, the successor was deemed bound by ties of filial loyalty to his father's legacy. In the early Qianlong period, the reforms of the Yongzheng era were a part of the Qianlong emperor's patrimony. Anyone who proposed or defended change in the structure of institutions ran the risk of suggesting that Qianlong was unfilial. No one could question the correctness of the deceased emperor's judgment. However, there was room to discuss whether a filial son and successor should pursue his father's policies with rigor and severity, or with generosity and leniency. The discussion of leniency and severity in early months of the new reign served to mask consideration of new policies. It most often centered around the role of the provincial governor.2 This was hardly surprising, for provincial governors had been the agents of the Yongzheng reforms. They had been the main authors of secret memorials, the main recipients of court letters, and they were the agents of government closest to the...