The True Dates of the Reigns and Reign–Periods of T’ang

THE TRUE DATES OF THE REIGNS AND REIGN-PERIODS OF T'ANG Paul W. Kroll Western-language studies on T'ang China published during the last two decades often reveal a surprising carelessness with regard to both dates of T'ang reign-periods (nien-hao ~ it) and the regnal dates of the T'ang rulers themselves . One of the more commonly encountered inaccuracies is. for instance, the notation that Hsuan Tsung ~ ~ ruled from u7l3-7SS.u although a simple checking of the sourc{'s will show that he ascended the throne on 8 September 712 and formally abdicated on 12 August 756. More embarrassing is the frequently seen dating of the dynasty itself as lasting from "618-906," despite the fact that it was not until 5 June 907 that the last sovereign of T'ang was 1n fact dethroned . One suspects that, all too often, the reason for such errors stems from uncritical reliance on the information found in Appendix A.l. of Mathews' Chinese-English DictionaryMany of the accession dates (the year only) of emperors given there are incorrect and some nien-hao are overlooked altogether. These problems are again compounded by the unfortunate practice of many users of that table, in apparently assuming that if, for examplp., the Chen-kuan ~ Vt period began in 627, then the preceeding Wu-te ~ l.t period must have ended in 626; thus reign-periods and regnal dates are both regularly shortened by a year in the citations of many scholars. Precisely accurate information on these dates is of course ready to hand in volume 1, Tadai no koyomi nr1~ 0) II (Kyoto, 1954), of the magnificent Todai kenkyu no shiori 1t 1~'ff >'!E fJ) f." 1; '}, published by the Jimbunkagaku Kenkyusho of Kyoto University. But it would seem that most Western students of the T1ang either do not have access to this work or simply choose not to consult it. In any case, I think the point is hardly debatable that we all should unify our citation of dates, when, as in these matters, the actual dates are shown to be conveniently verifiable. In the interest of promoting such consistency, I have prepared the following tables. They present in compact and. I hope, easily referrable form the true dates of the T'ang reigns and reign-periods, as established in Tadai no koyomi. First, the monarchs of T'ang and their dates of accession : Posthumous Title ,.>.0 • Kao Tsu I%) of.! T I . ~ \~ a~ Tsung 1-'.• if".. Kao Tsung ,"-!j $ Chung Tsung ~:j: Pf'rsonal Name Li Yuan f7/fit Li Shih-min tttl\ Li eh ih $-i~ Li Hs ien t-'#.~ 25 Accession Date 18 Junp 618 4 Sep. 626 15 July 649 3 Jan. 684 THE TRUE DATES OF THE REIGNS AND REIGN-PERIODS OF T'ANG Paul W. Kroll WestP.rn-language studif's on T'ang China published during the last two decades often reveal a surprising carelessness with regard to both dates of T'ang reign-periods (nien-hao 年 i,t) and the regna 1 dates of the T'ang rulers them一 selves. One of the more commonly encountered inaccuracies is. for instance, the notation that Hsuan Tsung 玄宗 ruled from 11713-755,u although a simple checking of the sourcPs will show that he ascended the throne on 8 September 712 and formally abdicatE>d on 12 August 756. More embarrassing is the frequently seen dating of the dynasty itself as lasting from "618-906,11 dt=>spite the fact that it was not until 5 June 907 that the last sovereign of T'ang was in fact dpthroned . One suspPcts that, all too often, thf'reason for such errors stems from uncritical rP.liance on the information found in Appendix A.l. of Mathews1 Chinese 一 English DictionaryMany of the accession dates (the year only) of empPrors given there arP incorrect and some nien-hao are overlooked altogether. These problems are again compounded by the unfortunate practice of many users of that table, in apparently assuming that if, for example, the Ch'i'n-kuan 貞戳 period began in 627, then the preceeding Wu-te 武德~period must have ended in 626; thus reign-pPriods and...