6 introduction
sidered potential subjects who held their offices as only “acting” or
“probationary” rulers until they were recognized by an emperor and
their territories thereby theoretically accepted as subordinate units.
It happened that the Chinese at such ocassions gave new names to
the foreign countries, although these were no more than bookkeeping
terms. The process of recognition was repeated with each new emperor.
The foreign rulers were usually willing to receive titles and sometimes
even coveted them, but did not, of course, thereby become vassals.
In fact, they had no problem in accepting titles from more than one
emperor simultaneously.
A further consequence of this concept was that missions from foreign
countries were considered “tribute missions”, their gifts or merchandise
“tribute”, and letters from their rulers “memorials”. In actual fact, most
letters were at the Chinese court translated, rephrased, or even invented
in accordance with Chinese imperial terminology, so that alien kings
and chiefs are made to refer to themselves as the emperor’s “subjects”
or “slaves” and as “kowtowing” to him. For instance, a “memorial”
of 977 supposedly said: “I, the king of Po-ni, Hsiang-ta, kotow” (Sung
shih 489:19b; Wen-hsien t’ung-k’ao 332:18b). Even more outrageously,
the king of Koguryo, Kao Yüan (Yong-yang Wang), is supposed in
598 to have presented a “memorial” in which he “apologized” and
referred to himself as a “shit” (Pei shih 94:9b).^1
Conversely, letters from Chinese emperors to foreign rulers were
called “edicts”, and these were not sent but “bestowed”.
Western, Chinese, and Japanese scholars have frequently fallen
into the trap of accepting the terminology of the Chinese dynastic
historians as authentic, and hence submission and tribute of foreign
countries to China have to them been historical truths. In actual fact,
excepting Chiao-chih/Annam, real tribute was never paid to China,
only by China to the Eastern Turks, Uighurs, Hsia, Liao, and Chin. I
will therefore avoid Chinese dynastic phraseology and say “letter” for
“memorial”, “gifts” for “tribute”, and “to recognize” for “to enfeoff”
or “invest”, and I will avoid such words as “edict” in Chinese com-
munications to foreigners, and “apology” for the offer of a foreign
ruler to restore normality.
Foreign envoys were commonly granted Chinese titles and, if they
(^1) Ma Tuan-lin says of the “memorial” of the king of Chu-lien of 1015 that there
can be no doubt that it was a Chinese composition and that it does not show any
evidence whatever of foreign origin. See Hirth and Rockhill, Chao Ju-kua p.99, note
3 and my Six Dynasties, vol.II, pp.80-81.