China's History: The Mandate Of Heaven Model
China’s history is arguably the richest and longest of all countries, fortunately for the scholars, this whole stretch of history was charted into different periods called dynasties. If China’s history was like a storybook and the dynasties were the chapters, then the “Mandate of Heaven” is definitely the essential concept to link the chapters together. However, the “Mandate of Heaven” model, like most philosophical concepts, actually provides a utopian representation of China’s historical reality due to its over-simplicity.
This is not, of course, to completely reject the “Mandate of Heaven” model as a way of understanding imperial succession and dynastic transmission. Originating in the Zhou dynasty (1045-256BC), the Mandate of Heaven …show more content…
is the philosophical “notion that the supreme ruler earn or lose the Mandate to rule based upon his virtue or lack thereof”1 (Miyamoto, 2011). Basically, Heaven bestow upon an honorable man the right to rule and the dynasty will prosper under his righteous rule, which often includes expanding into foreign lands, gaining economic wealth and a flourishing of culture. However, decadence of rulers or natural disasters would mark the decline of the dynasty, and another individual (who have received the Mandate of Heaven) will then lead a successful rebellion and declare a new dynasty. This is how one dynasty pass the “baton” to the next dynasty. This concept of Mandate of Heaven has become “fundamental to the legitimacy of every subsequent dynasty”2 (Keay, 2009) after its invention.
One of the most famous examples is perhaps the transition between Sui and Tang dynasty. Sui dynasty (598-618) saw the progress of Chinese society with implementation of a system of land distribution, civil service examinations and a legal code. Yet all good things come to an end, the last ruler Sui Yangdi was not a virtuous ruler. He built a very luxurious palace and filled it with beautiful concubines, and also led three large scale invasions of Korea, which ended in failure3 (Ong, 2005). His exploits led to many sufferings, and the Sui dynasty was overthrown by a rebellion led by Li Yuan, who then established the Tang dynasty (618-907).
The decline and end of the Sui dynasty illustrated how “Mandate of Heaven” played a part in the dynastic transmission. This is also evidence of how “dynastic decline went hand in hand with the increasing inefficiency of the ruling house”4 (Fairbank and Goldman, 2006).
Throughout the 500 years of China history, dynastic transmission was not always so simple like the turning of a page in a book.
In fact, most of time it was a messy and prolonged affair with no exact date or even year of “passing the baton”. Dynasties were often established before the overthrow of an existing regime or existing states, or continued for a period of time after they have been defeated, therefore the “Mandate of Heaven” model is unrealistic and inaccurate to assume China changed suddenly and all at once.
Sui Wudi assumed the Mandate and declared a new Sui dynasty in 581 (after the Northern and Southern Dynasties period). However, this dynasty was established before unification of China, and it overlook the fact that someone else had declared a Chen dynasty in South China as early as year 5575 (Cotterell, 2008). Thus, if the Sui dynasty declared in 581 only have authority and rule over North China, does the model of “Mandate of Heaven” still applies? Or does Sui only gained the Mandate in year 589 when it unified …show more content…
China?
Over the 5000 years of Chinese history, there were over a hundred of self-declared dynasties yet only a few were recognized as a part of China’s legitimate dynastic succession and it was not uncommon for some “legitimate” dynasties to only control less than half of China and therefore coincide with another “legitimate” dynasty in the other half of the country.
Chen dynasty was one example of a dynasty that did controlled a significant part of China for nearly 30 years, but not recognized as part of China’s dynastic succession. Therefore, imperial succession and dynastic transmission involves much more uncertainties and complexity than the model imagines.
As Chinese historian Mao Zonggang had so astutely observed, “this country when divided for too long will reunite, and when it is united for too long will go its separate ways”. The Northern and Southern Dynasties mentioned above was only one period when there was no single dynasty that unified China. Regional separatism was very common and significant in the history of China, which was divided for long periods of its history, with different regions being ruled by different groups each claiming to be the rightful ruler with the Mandate of
Heaven. The “Springs and Autumn” period and the “Warring states” period both derived their names from historical texts written in that time, the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Warring States Annals which describe happenings in 770-481BC and 481-221BC respectively6 (Keay, 2009). These two periods were extremely significant in China’s history, as they contributed to the birth and development of philosophy and ideologies that would influence China for the years to come, yet there was no single established dynasty in these periods. Although Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770-221BC) included these periods, much of China was actually under the control of multiple feudal states independent of the weak central government. These periods of history were characterized by “intense competition between the multiplicity of one-time feudatories…within and around the crumbling Zhou kingdom”7 (Keay, 2009).
The Mandate of Heaven model imagined a central ruling dynastic that have the favour of Heaven to rule China, but it neglects that China is a vast territory that sometimes cannot be managed by one ruling dynasty, especially one that is weakening, and oftentimes, many different groups of ambitious men will rise up in the bid for power. Thus, this showed that the “Mandate of Heaven” model failed to represent the historical reality of political and regional divisions.
Apart from imagining how dynasties are replaced and succeeded by another, the model of “Mandate of Heaven” also involves the transmission of power and authority from emperor to emperor, within a dynasty. When Yu’s son took over the throne of Xia dynasty, a 4000 year old tradition of familial succession was started8 (Ong, 2005). Although the Mandate of Heaven was originally a model that legitimize power through the virtue and morals of an individual, it had been “modified” or re-imagined by China’s emperors who view it as the right of their family to rule, and thus started the traditional practice of emperors passing the throne to their eldest son. Thus the “Mandate of Heaven” model has come to mean the favour of heaven for a specific family to rule.
Although the traditional practice is to make the eldest son the Crown Prince who would eventually succeed the throne, this was not always the case as many sons of emperors rivalled eachother for the position. One famous example was Emperor Taizong of Tang dynasty, one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history, who passed the throne to his ninth son, Li Zhi, who then became Emperor Gaozong9. The eldest son, Li Chengqian, was originally the Crown Prince but was replaced due to his immoral behavior and his outrageous plot to overthrow his father. This showed that power is not always inherited by the eldest son due to a wide range of possibilities like domestic politics and competency issue of the son.
Another issue that disrupted the succession of imperial power was the presence of regents who had actual power instead of the emperors. In these instances, the emperors were the ones who supposedly held the Mandate of Heaven and the right to rule, but the power to make decisions and policies actually lies in the hands of the regents. Emperor Wu of Han dynasty (207 -220BC) was terminally ill by 88BC and he decided to name his youngest son, six years old Liu Fuling as his successor. He therefore chose He Guang as a regent or advisor to the young emperor. The regent controlled the emperor and then proceeded to place a series of children on the throne to retain his own power. This continued until regent Wang Mang officially dethroned the emperor, claimed himself to be the rightful ruler and declared a new Xin dynasty in 9AD. The power of the regents and the powerless of the emperor was not considered in the “Mandate of Heaven” model, yet it was common in the history of China, thus the model is far too simplistic and does not represent the historical reality which involved plenty of such political complexities.
Another situation seen in China history but neglected by the “Mandate of Heaven” model was the disruption of dynasties. Wu Zetian was one of the most well-known rulers of China, and her story of usurping the throne was even more famous. When Emperor Gaozong of Tang dynasty was ill, he allowed “Empress Wu (to) read all the reports or memorials and make the decisions”10 (Woo, 2008), but this was only the beginning of how Wu Zetian influenced and interfered with politics. After Emperor Gaozong passed away, Wu continued to interfere politics even when Emperor Zhongzong was reigning. She continued to consolidate power and finally declared herself the sovereign empress of a new dynasty (Zhou) in year 690. When Wu was eighty and sick in bed, she was forced to abdicate and return the power to the crown prince. The crown prince was made the emperor and the Tang dynasty was finally restored in year 705.
This was similar to how Wang Mang seized power and declared a new dynasty, but was soon defeated, and the previous Han dynasty was restored. Both the Han and Tang dynasties were significant periods in the history of China, yet the disruption of both were not explained by the “Mandate of Heaven” model. When the Zhou Dynasty and Xin dynasty were declared by Wu Zetian and Wang Mang respectively, and when the two individuals gained power and control over China, had they not received the mandate of heaven?
According to the model, the uprising of a new dynasty should mean that the previous dynasty had lost the favour of Heaven and thus lost the legitimacy and right to rule. The previous dynasty would become another page in history, while the new dynasty start to prosper. However, in both cases, the Tang and Han dynasty were restored. This “re-gaining” of the Mandate of Heaven was something opposite from the progressive dynastic transmission that the “Mandate of Heaven” model suggests. Thus the model has excluded yet another situation that was significant in China’s history.
In conclusion, the “Mandate of Heaven” model does provide some explanation for how dynasties declined and became replaced by new dynasties. Although it represented the historical reality that dynastic decline were often accompanied by incompetence of the ruler, the cycle proposed by the model was too simplistic and even naïve, probably due to many warlords simply using the model to legitimize their claim to power. For the uneducated mass of the Chinese population who were not yet exposed to Western science and knowledge, the “Mandate of Heaven” model is the most “reasonable” explanation for power and authority in China.
However, Dynastic transmission were not as simple as passing a baton to the next ruler, wars were mostly involved, and wars were very messy and prolonged affairs. Also, China is such a vast territory and it is really rare for a central government and a single dynasty to assume rule over the entire, or even most of China. Therefore there are periods when China was not united but instead consisted of multiple self-declared “dynasties”. Even when a single dynasty is in power, the contest and ambitions for power often complicates the affair of imperial succession and even dynastic transmission, and unlike what the model suggests, power does not always rest with the emperor. Therefore, in the rich and diversified history of China, the idealistic and simplistic model of “Mandate of Heaven” only represents historical reality minimally.
Bibliography
Cotterell, A. 2008. The imperial capitals of China. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Printed. Pg 283
Fairbank, J. and Goldman, M. 2006. China: A New History. 2nd ed. Printed. Pg 48
Keay, J. 2009. China. New York: Basic Books. Printed. Pg 15, 62
Miyamoto, Y. 2011. Demystifying Confucianism. Ebook. Chapter 7, “The Mandate of Heaven: Tradition Social Contract of China”
Ong, S. 2008. China condensed. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions. Printed. Pg 4, 34
Woo, X. 2008. Empress Wu the Great. New York: Algora Pub. Printed. Pg 71
This is not, of course, to completely reject the “Mandate of Heaven” model as a way of understanding imperial succession and dynastic transmission. Originating in the Zhou dynasty (1045-256BC), the Mandate of Heaven …show more content…
is the philosophical “notion that the supreme ruler earn or lose the Mandate to rule based upon his virtue or lack thereof”1 (Miyamoto, 2011). Basically, Heaven bestow upon an honorable man the right to rule and the dynasty will prosper under his righteous rule, which often includes expanding into foreign lands, gaining economic wealth and a flourishing of culture. However, decadence of rulers or natural disasters would mark the decline of the dynasty, and another individual (who have received the Mandate of Heaven) will then lead a successful rebellion and declare a new dynasty. This is how one dynasty pass the “baton” to the next dynasty. This concept of Mandate of Heaven has become “fundamental to the legitimacy of every subsequent dynasty”2 (Keay, 2009) after its invention.
One of the most famous examples is perhaps the transition between Sui and Tang dynasty. Sui dynasty (598-618) saw the progress of Chinese society with implementation of a system of land distribution, civil service examinations and a legal code. Yet all good things come to an end, the last ruler Sui Yangdi was not a virtuous ruler. He built a very luxurious palace and filled it with beautiful concubines, and also led three large scale invasions of Korea, which ended in failure3 (Ong, 2005). His exploits led to many sufferings, and the Sui dynasty was overthrown by a rebellion led by Li Yuan, who then established the Tang dynasty (618-907).
The decline and end of the Sui dynasty illustrated how “Mandate of Heaven” played a part in the dynastic transmission. This is also evidence of how “dynastic decline went hand in hand with the increasing inefficiency of the ruling house”4 (Fairbank and Goldman, 2006).
Throughout the 500 years of China history, dynastic transmission was not always so simple like the turning of a page in a book.
In fact, most of time it was a messy and prolonged affair with no exact date or even year of “passing the baton”. Dynasties were often established before the overthrow of an existing regime or existing states, or continued for a period of time after they have been defeated, therefore the “Mandate of Heaven” model is unrealistic and inaccurate to assume China changed suddenly and all at once.
Sui Wudi assumed the Mandate and declared a new Sui dynasty in 581 (after the Northern and Southern Dynasties period). However, this dynasty was established before unification of China, and it overlook the fact that someone else had declared a Chen dynasty in South China as early as year 5575 (Cotterell, 2008). Thus, if the Sui dynasty declared in 581 only have authority and rule over North China, does the model of “Mandate of Heaven” still applies? Or does Sui only gained the Mandate in year 589 when it unified …show more content…
China?
Over the 5000 years of Chinese history, there were over a hundred of self-declared dynasties yet only a few were recognized as a part of China’s legitimate dynastic succession and it was not uncommon for some “legitimate” dynasties to only control less than half of China and therefore coincide with another “legitimate” dynasty in the other half of the country.
Chen dynasty was one example of a dynasty that did controlled a significant part of China for nearly 30 years, but not recognized as part of China’s dynastic succession. Therefore, imperial succession and dynastic transmission involves much more uncertainties and complexity than the model imagines.
As Chinese historian Mao Zonggang had so astutely observed, “this country when divided for too long will reunite, and when it is united for too long will go its separate ways”. The Northern and Southern Dynasties mentioned above was only one period when there was no single dynasty that unified China. Regional separatism was very common and significant in the history of China, which was divided for long periods of its history, with different regions being ruled by different groups each claiming to be the rightful ruler with the Mandate of
Heaven. The “Springs and Autumn” period and the “Warring states” period both derived their names from historical texts written in that time, the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Warring States Annals which describe happenings in 770-481BC and 481-221BC respectively6 (Keay, 2009). These two periods were extremely significant in China’s history, as they contributed to the birth and development of philosophy and ideologies that would influence China for the years to come, yet there was no single established dynasty in these periods. Although Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770-221BC) included these periods, much of China was actually under the control of multiple feudal states independent of the weak central government. These periods of history were characterized by “intense competition between the multiplicity of one-time feudatories…within and around the crumbling Zhou kingdom”7 (Keay, 2009).
The Mandate of Heaven model imagined a central ruling dynastic that have the favour of Heaven to rule China, but it neglects that China is a vast territory that sometimes cannot be managed by one ruling dynasty, especially one that is weakening, and oftentimes, many different groups of ambitious men will rise up in the bid for power. Thus, this showed that the “Mandate of Heaven” model failed to represent the historical reality of political and regional divisions.
Apart from imagining how dynasties are replaced and succeeded by another, the model of “Mandate of Heaven” also involves the transmission of power and authority from emperor to emperor, within a dynasty. When Yu’s son took over the throne of Xia dynasty, a 4000 year old tradition of familial succession was started8 (Ong, 2005). Although the Mandate of Heaven was originally a model that legitimize power through the virtue and morals of an individual, it had been “modified” or re-imagined by China’s emperors who view it as the right of their family to rule, and thus started the traditional practice of emperors passing the throne to their eldest son. Thus the “Mandate of Heaven” model has come to mean the favour of heaven for a specific family to rule.
Although the traditional practice is to make the eldest son the Crown Prince who would eventually succeed the throne, this was not always the case as many sons of emperors rivalled eachother for the position. One famous example was Emperor Taizong of Tang dynasty, one of the greatest emperors in Chinese history, who passed the throne to his ninth son, Li Zhi, who then became Emperor Gaozong9. The eldest son, Li Chengqian, was originally the Crown Prince but was replaced due to his immoral behavior and his outrageous plot to overthrow his father. This showed that power is not always inherited by the eldest son due to a wide range of possibilities like domestic politics and competency issue of the son.
Another issue that disrupted the succession of imperial power was the presence of regents who had actual power instead of the emperors. In these instances, the emperors were the ones who supposedly held the Mandate of Heaven and the right to rule, but the power to make decisions and policies actually lies in the hands of the regents. Emperor Wu of Han dynasty (207 -220BC) was terminally ill by 88BC and he decided to name his youngest son, six years old Liu Fuling as his successor. He therefore chose He Guang as a regent or advisor to the young emperor. The regent controlled the emperor and then proceeded to place a series of children on the throne to retain his own power. This continued until regent Wang Mang officially dethroned the emperor, claimed himself to be the rightful ruler and declared a new Xin dynasty in 9AD. The power of the regents and the powerless of the emperor was not considered in the “Mandate of Heaven” model, yet it was common in the history of China, thus the model is far too simplistic and does not represent the historical reality which involved plenty of such political complexities.
Another situation seen in China history but neglected by the “Mandate of Heaven” model was the disruption of dynasties. Wu Zetian was one of the most well-known rulers of China, and her story of usurping the throne was even more famous. When Emperor Gaozong of Tang dynasty was ill, he allowed “Empress Wu (to) read all the reports or memorials and make the decisions”10 (Woo, 2008), but this was only the beginning of how Wu Zetian influenced and interfered with politics. After Emperor Gaozong passed away, Wu continued to interfere politics even when Emperor Zhongzong was reigning. She continued to consolidate power and finally declared herself the sovereign empress of a new dynasty (Zhou) in year 690. When Wu was eighty and sick in bed, she was forced to abdicate and return the power to the crown prince. The crown prince was made the emperor and the Tang dynasty was finally restored in year 705.
This was similar to how Wang Mang seized power and declared a new dynasty, but was soon defeated, and the previous Han dynasty was restored. Both the Han and Tang dynasties were significant periods in the history of China, yet the disruption of both were not explained by the “Mandate of Heaven” model. When the Zhou Dynasty and Xin dynasty were declared by Wu Zetian and Wang Mang respectively, and when the two individuals gained power and control over China, had they not received the mandate of heaven?
According to the model, the uprising of a new dynasty should mean that the previous dynasty had lost the favour of Heaven and thus lost the legitimacy and right to rule. The previous dynasty would become another page in history, while the new dynasty start to prosper. However, in both cases, the Tang and Han dynasty were restored. This “re-gaining” of the Mandate of Heaven was something opposite from the progressive dynastic transmission that the “Mandate of Heaven” model suggests. Thus the model has excluded yet another situation that was significant in China’s history.
In conclusion, the “Mandate of Heaven” model does provide some explanation for how dynasties declined and became replaced by new dynasties. Although it represented the historical reality that dynastic decline were often accompanied by incompetence of the ruler, the cycle proposed by the model was too simplistic and even naïve, probably due to many warlords simply using the model to legitimize their claim to power. For the uneducated mass of the Chinese population who were not yet exposed to Western science and knowledge, the “Mandate of Heaven” model is the most “reasonable” explanation for power and authority in China.
However, Dynastic transmission were not as simple as passing a baton to the next ruler, wars were mostly involved, and wars were very messy and prolonged affairs. Also, China is such a vast territory and it is really rare for a central government and a single dynasty to assume rule over the entire, or even most of China. Therefore there are periods when China was not united but instead consisted of multiple self-declared “dynasties”. Even when a single dynasty is in power, the contest and ambitions for power often complicates the affair of imperial succession and even dynastic transmission, and unlike what the model suggests, power does not always rest with the emperor. Therefore, in the rich and diversified history of China, the idealistic and simplistic model of “Mandate of Heaven” only represents historical reality minimally.
Bibliography
Cotterell, A. 2008. The imperial capitals of China. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. Printed. Pg 283
Fairbank, J. and Goldman, M. 2006. China: A New History. 2nd ed. Printed. Pg 48
Keay, J. 2009. China. New York: Basic Books. Printed. Pg 15, 62
Miyamoto, Y. 2011. Demystifying Confucianism. Ebook. Chapter 7, “The Mandate of Heaven: Tradition Social Contract of China”
Ong, S. 2008. China condensed. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Editions. Printed. Pg 4, 34
Woo, X. 2008. Empress Wu the Great. New York: Algora Pub. Printed. Pg 71