The Metageography of the Northern and Southern Dynasties
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T’OUNG PAO 334 T’oung Pao 103-4-5Felt (2017) 334-387 www.brill.com/tpao International Journal of Chinese Studies/Revue Internationale de Sinologie The Metageography of the Northern and Southern Dynasties David Jonathan Felt (Brigham Young University) Abstract Sui and Tang historians constructed a geographical conceptualization for the Northern and Southern Dynasties that depicted them as equal and complementary halves of one greater whole, now “unified” under the Sui-Tang empire. This spatial model has been the dominant way in which modern historians have thought about the fifth and sixth centuries. But literati of that time conceptualized their geopolitical landscape very differently. This article examines the varied ways in which literati of the Northern and Southern Dynasties conceptualized their own geopolitical landscape. In each of the models examined, the spatial relationship between north and south is described as hierarchical and adversarial, differing considerably from the equal and complementary model espoused by Tang historians. Résumé Les historiens des époques Sui et Tang ont élaboré une conceptualisation géographique des dynasties du Nord et du Sud qui les décrit comme les moitiés égales et complémentaires d’un tout, unifié par les empires Sui et Tang. Ce modèle spatial est devenu le principal mode d’appréhension de l’histoire des ve et vie siècles pour les historiens modernes. Les intellectuels de ces deux siècles cependant, avaient de toutes autres conceptions de leur paysage géopolitique. Cet article examine ces différentes conceptions; il identifie plusieurs modèles, dans lesquels les relations entre Nord et Sud sont toujours décrites comme hiérarchiques et hostiles, au contraire du modèle complémentaire adopté ensuite par les historiens des Tang Keywords Northern and Southern Dynasties, geography, metageography, Empire, Jiankang Empire, Tabgatch Empire, Northern Dynasties, Southern Dynasties. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2017 T’oungDOI: Pao 10.116 103-4-53/15685322-10345P02 (2017) 334-387 ISSN 0082-5433 (print version) ISSN 1568-5322 (online version)Downloaded TPAO from Brill.com10/02/2021 03:18:27PM via free access The Metageography of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 335 During the fifth and sixth centuries, political divisions within the Sinitic ecumene stabilized along the two great river basins of mainland East Asia—the traditional civilizational core of the Yellow River and a new emerging core of the Yangzi River. This geopolitical arrangement is tra- ditionally called the Northern and Southern Dynasties. This article will trace the development of the geographical concept, or metageography, of the north/south divide. By metageography, I mean a “set of spatial structures through which people order their knowledge of the world.”1 My primary point is that this metageography of “China” being composed of two equal and complementary halves was a creation of Sui and Tang literati to support the idea of unification; it was a metageography for- eign to the people who lived in the period that we now call “the North- ern and Southern Dynasties.” This is not to say that we, as modern historians, should necessarily abandon the north/south metageography. I think it is an extremely use- ful “set of spatial structures through which [to] order [our] knowledge” of the fourth- and fifth-century Sinitic ecumene. The military stalemate between the two political centers and the subsequent cultural diver- gence between them, as Mark Lewis states, “define[s] the historical sig- nificance of this period.”2 But we must realize that the north/south metageography as it is traditionally employed (i.e., as equal and comple- mentary halves of one greater whole) is largely a seventh-century cre- ation. It can still be useful for us, but we must not assume that fourth- and fifth-century literati thought of their own contemporary geopolitical ar- rangement in this way. The development of the north/south metageography can be roughly sketched out in terms of three phases. First, initially the Northern and Southern Dynasties each depicted themselves as universal em- pires, emanating refined culture from their own center of the world. 1) Martin Lewis and Kären Wigen, The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1997), ix. 2) Mark Edward Lewis, China Between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties (Cam- bridge, Mass: Belknap Press, 2009), 1. On the significant social, economic, and political dif- ferences between the Jiankang and Tabgatch Empires, see Tang Changru 唐長孺, Wei Jin Nanbeichao Sui Tang shi san lun: Zhongguo fengjian shehui de xingcheng he qianqi de bianhua 魏晉南北朝隋唐史三論: 中國封建社會的形成和前期的變化 (Wuhan: Wuhan daxue chubanshe, 1993), chap. 2. T’oung Pao 103-4-5 (2017) 334-387 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 03:18:27PM via free access 336 Felt Each portrayed their primary rival to the north or south respectively as peripheral and barbarian, confined by their limited regional environ- ments and local customs. Second, as the military stalemate hardened and cultural exchange softened into the sixth century, literati began to claim dominance over their rival through claiming the superiority of their own local customs over their rival’s local customs. This was con- trary to this traditional use of local customs (fengsu 風俗) in imperial geography as always pejorative, describing that which is parochial and limited. Despite the inherent contradictions of these two geographical appeals to authority (the first through transcending local customs and the other by embracing them), they were both regularly employed to- gether throughout the fifth and sixth centuries with a gradual shift to- ward the latter approach as the realities of a polycentric geopolitical arrangement settled in. The third phase developed along with the Sui and Tang unification rhetoric. Sui and Tang literati took the competitive, adversarial regionalizing rhetoric of the fourth and fifth centuries and reconstructed it into a metageography that supported their own claim to authority through unification, shifting spatial logic from one of rival imperial centers toward two equal and complementary halves of one greater whole, now joined together again by their own Sui-Tang imperial state. The Tabgatch and Jiankang Empires The Northern and Southern Dynasties did not consider themselves to be just halves of an empire, and not complementary or equal to their pri- mary rival to the north or south.3 Rather, each laid claim to the imperial metageography inherited from the Han empire; they saw their own state 3) This differs, for example, with Liao/Song relations, which, although not usually referred to as Northern and Southern Dynasties by modern historians, did in diplomatic exchanges refer to each other in these terms, accepting an equal political standing between each other. See Jing-shen Tao, “Barbarians or Northerners: Northern Sung Images of the Khitans,” in China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries, ed. Morris Rossabi (Berkeley: Univ of California Press, 1983), 66-86. This concept of northern and south- ern kingdoms was an extremely flexible spatial model in East Asia. For example, premodern Vietnamese states would refer to themselves as “The Southern State” (nan guo 南國) and China as “The Northern State” (bei guo 北國). See Liam C. Kelley, Beyond the Bronze Pillars: Envoy Poetry and the Sino-Vietnamese Relationship (Honolulu: Univ. of Hawai’i Press, 2005), 25-26. T’oung Pao 103-4-5 (2017) 334-387 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 03:18:27PM via free access The Metageography of the Northern and Southern Dynasties 337 as a universal empire, the center of the world, the model of refined cul- ture to their uncivilized neighbors, and the recipient of tribute from across their peripheries. This is of course not an accurate depiction of the geopolitical landscape, but it was not an entirely accurate descrip- tion of the Han empire, either. Still, these competing claims to imperial geography were also not pure political fiction. So as to not presuppose a teleology of Northern and Southern Dynas- ties as they would be defined by Sui and Tang officials centuries after the fact, I shall avoid the terms “Northern Dynasties” and “Southern Dynas- ties” altogether. Instead, I shall employ terminology that better situates imperial formations in mainland East Asia within a larger premodern Eurasian context. Doing so helps to move us away from unjustified as- sumptions of Chinese exceptionalism, the artificial prioritization of dy- nastic cycles, and the presupposed unity of lands that would one day become “China.” We may refer to the dynastic courts centered on the Yangzi River (Song, Southern Qi, Liang, Chen) collectively as the Jiank- ang empire, borrowing the term from Andrew Chittick. All of these re- gimes were centered on the capital city of Jiankang, they preserved a mostly consistent territorial extent, and they maintained mostly similar political institutions despite the dynastic shifts.4 4) As Chittick uses the term, it includes the Three Kingdoms state of Wu, is interrupted by the “Jin occupation,” and then returns rule from Jiankang with the Eastern Jin court. While I do not disagree with this, my emphasis here is on the final four dynasties of the Jiankang empire, during which the empire reached its height of power. See Andrew Chittick, “Ver- nacular Languages in the Medieval Jiankang Empire,” Sino-Platonic Papers 250 (July 2014): 2-3, 24-25; idem, “Dragon Boats and Serpent Prows: Naval Warfare and the Political Culture of China’s Southern Borderlands,” in Imperial China and Its Southern Neighbours, ed. Victor H. Mair and Liam C. Kelley (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2015), 140- 60;idem, “The Southern Dynasties,” forthcoming in Cambridge History of China, vol. 2: The Six Dynasties; and idem, “The Intentional Frontier: Building the Boundaries of the Jiankang Empire” (paper for the Association of Asian Studies annual conference, 2015). Concerning the centrality of the city of Jiankang to imperial authority, Emperor Yuan 元 of Liang (r.