China during the Tang-Song Interregnum, 878–978

This book challenges the long-established structure of Chinese history around dynasties, adopting a more “organic” approach which emphasises cultural and economic trends that transcend arbitrary dynastic boundaries. It argues that with the collapse of the Tang court and northern control over the holistic empire in the last decades of the ninth century, the now-autonomous kingdoms that filled the political vacuum in the south responded with a burst of innovative energy that helped set the stage for the economic and cultural transformations of the following . Moreover, it argues that these transformations and this economic and cultural innovation deeply affected the subsequent model of holistic empire which continues right up to the present and that therefore the interregnum century of division left a critically important legacy.

Hugh R. Clark is Professor Emeritus of History and East Asian Studies at Ursinus College, Pennsylvania Asian States and Empires

Edited by Peter Lorge, Vanderbilt University

For a full list of available titles please visit: https://www.routledge.com/Asian- States-and-Empires/book-series/SE900.

The importance of Asia will continue to grow in the twenty-first century, but remarkably little is available in English on the history of the polities that constitute this critical area. Most current work on Asia is hindered by the extremely limited state of knowledge of the Asian past in general, and the history of Asian states and empires in particular. Asian States and Empires is a book series that will provide detailed accounts of the history of states and empires across Asia from earliest times until the present. It aims to explain and describe the formation, maintenance and collapse of Asian states and empires, and the means by which this was accomplished, making avail- able the history of more than half the world’s population at a level of detail comparable to the history of Western polities. In so doing, it will demon- strate that Asian peoples and civilizations had their own histories apart from the West, and provide the basis for understanding contemporary Asia in terms of its actual histories, rather than broad generalizations informed by Western categories of knowledge.

China, Korea & Japan at War, 1592–1598 Eyewitness Accounts J. Marshall Craig

China’s Northern Wei Dynasty, 386–535 The Struggle for Legitimacy Puning Liu

China's Borderlands under the Qing, 1644–1912 Perspectives and Approaches in the Investigation of Imperial Boundary Regions Daniel McMahon

China during the Tang-Song Interregnum, 878–978 New Approaches to the Southern Kingdoms Hugh R. Clark China during the Tang-Song Interregnum, 878–978 New Approaches to the Southern Kingdoms

Hugh R. Clark First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Hugh R. Clark The right of to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-032-05362-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-05365-3 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-19724-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003197249

Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books Contents

List of illustrations vi Preface vii Glossary xii

1 Introduction 1 2 Semi-colonialization under the Tang: Setting the Stage for the Independent South 9 3 Politics in an Age of Division: North–South Relations and Inter- state Negotiation 25 4 The Economies of the South 40 5 The Social and Cultural Initiatives of the South 57 6 Steps Toward Restoration of the Holistic Empire 78 7 The Legacy of the Interregnum: Recruiting the Southern Elite, the Discourse on Civilization, and the Standardization of Values 86 8 Conclusions: The Holistic Legacy 100

Bibliography 109 Index 119 Illustrations

Figures 0.1 Map of Southern Polities (approximate) x 5.1 The Descendants of Zheng Zhuang 69

Tables 0.1 Southern Polities in the 10th Century x 4.1 Census data, 742 versus 1080 45 4.2 Demographic Data from the Taiping huanyu ji.47 Preface

The following essays address an understudied epoch in the history of that corner of East Asia we call “China.” This is the era known to orthodox his- tory as the Ten Kingdoms, referring to a congeries of polities in the basin and lands further south that controlled southern China through the interregnum that divided the Tang and Song dynasties. I will explain in later chapters why that is a misnomer; suffice it here to say that I shall argue that the role these “kingdoms” played through the years in question has generally been overlooked. These essays are my attempt to recognize the essential role they played in a range of economic and cultural developments that affected the cultural and political history China thereafter. The Introduction and Chapters 2 and 3 are published here for the first time; Chapters 4 through 7 and the Conclusions were initially published as a series of three essays in the Journal of Song Yuan Studies (citations in text). I present them here with minor modifications to limit repetition; most notably, the third essay has been divided into two chapters (Chapters 6 and 7), and the individual conclusions of each essay have been consolidated in the final Conclusion. The initial inspiration behind these essays was an on-going series of work- shops on the Tang-Song Transition that have been convened by Robert Hymes (Columbia University) and Anna Shields (Princeton University). It has been a privilegetobeincludedinthesegatherings,buttheypresentedanhistorio- graphical problem to me. Although I had never explicitly sought to define my ownresearchintermsofthattransition,infactallmyworkhasbeenbuilt around the decades in question, where it has often played a central role in my discussions; a reader might check the numerous references to my own work amongtheworkscited.Itwas,therefore,strikingtomethattheearlypapersin the workshop largely jumped over the interregnum decades. The fact is, the interregnum is complex and often poorly or even completely undocumented, and there are topics that simply cannot be explored. I felt, however, that it was important to demonstrate that the century does offer a range of topics that are accessible, that it was in fact a time and place that saw important social and cultural change, and that as a consequence it should not be overlooked. It is rarely sufficient, I will argue, to identify a phenomenon in the Tang and present contrasts with the Song, and then to consider the job done. Scholars should look into the interregnum decades as much as the sources allow because so much of what we see taking shape in the Song had roots or evolution in the interregnum. These chapters are intended to affirm that point. viii Preface The text focuses on the south, which I define as the lands of the Yangtze River basin and below. This is a reflection of my prior years of scholarship on the history of southern province and the wider south from the late Tang through the Song; my background addresses the south. That is not to deny the important developments in the north, but they have been studied by other scholars: Gungwu, Naomi Standen, and Richard Davis, for example, all of whom have worked on the interregnum north. But the north is another story for others to tell; its trajectory was in fact quite distinct from that of the south. I am confident that the southern focus of these essays does not detract from the wider importance of what they cover. A second point that requires clarification is what I define as the “inter- regnum century.” Ever since the earliest summaries of the years that sepa- rated the abdication of the last Tang emperor in 907 and 960 when Zhao Kuangyin (927–976) announced the Song dynasty, those 53 years have defined that separation. However, as I will emphasize, the Tang effectively ended in the 870s with the great rebellion associated with (835– 884). In 878 Huang abandoned his rebellion’s origins in the Huainan region and embarked on a cataclysmic sweep through the lands of the lower Yangtze River basin and then into the deepest south. In his trail he left a radically altered political landscape where the Tang court had almost no influence. Because these are the lands on which I will focus, I will cite 878 as the beginning of the interregnum. At the other end, Zhao Kuangyin, now the Emperor Taizu of the Song dynasty, began to systematically target the indi- vidual southern courts shortly after taking power, but it was a step-by-step process. Finally in 978 the last of the independent southern polities: the court based in and the QuanZhang autonomous satrapy in southern Fujian, formally submitted to the Song. Thus throughout the following discussion I will define the interregnum as a full century, 878–978. Lastly, a word about terms. The language of the world I will discuss was, of course, Middle Period Chinese. This presents two problems. First, as western scholars have engaged that world, a number of translations into our own lan- guages have become standard. Because no translation is exact, however, and often I feel a standard English term obscures important aspects of the original Chinese, I will try to avoid translation of critical terms as much as I can without obscuring my argument. The second problem is derivative of the first. Sinitic scholars settled on a variety of terms to name the institutions they were dealing with. Most immediately, Chinese records routinely refer to the southern polities of the interregnum as guo 國,incontrasttothechaodai 朝代 that sequentially controlled the Central Plain, the vast alluvial plain east of the Taihang Moun- tain barrier that is also known as the “North China Plain,” and that has been formed by eons of flooding by the . The common English transla- tions are “kingdom” and “dynasty,” terms that obscure the very important hierarchical relationship between guo and chaodai, or simply dai, in Chinese. I will therefore endeavor to use the Chinese terms where I feel the English obscures an important aspect of that relationship. Preface ix That only masks, however, a further problem. The polities that I will focus on did not always call themselves guo, with all the unstated implications of that term. As I will explain, some of the southern rulers such as those in Chu accepted a subordinate relationship to the northern dai; they were always self- referentially guo. But others proclaimed themselves chaodai, a posture the northern dai never acknowledged. Nevertheless since the earliest narrative his- tories of the era that were compiled in the later 10th century the orthodox pos- ture has been to describe all the southern polities as guo and to define their relationship to the northern dai as subordinate. Although this is an important semantic distinction to keep in mind, in order to minimize rhetorical confusion I will follow the historiographical norm and refer to the southern polities as guo. Before moving into the heart of my discussion, it is equally important to recognize what these essays do not intend to do. First, “the south” is a very broad term. From the full reach of the Yangtze basin to the deepest south, the southern guo embraced markedly varied cultures and traditions. Far western , home to the successive Former and Latter Shu guo, had little in common with Guangnan, site of the (southern, or Guangnan) Han guo, just as the latter was far removed from events, traditions, and culture of Liangzhe, where the WuYue guo was located. Although all southern guo had to form some degree of relationship with the successive courts of the Yellow River basin, the acknowledged heart of Sinitic culture, they all to some degree shared, and all were bound together by a degree of economic part- nership that was defined by the Yangtze River and its southern tributaries, through which even (Guangnan) Han guo in the far south1 was integrated via its continued role as the primary entrepôt of the South Seas trade that was sent north via those southern tributaries. Still, it is untenable to suggest there was a single, or even generally shared, “southern experience” through the interregnum. For multiple reasons, both historiographical and personal, the bulk of the following discussion will focus on WuYueaswellasMin,theguo that loosely controlled Fujian, with digressions when useful to the successive guo of Wu and Tang, and occasionally to even broader reaches. While my focus, therefore, is not “the south” in its entirety, my point that there were important innovations either consolidating or emerging in the south remains viable. All evidence asserts that these were the guo that most successfully nurtured the transformations I will discuss. Second, although I define my discussion in terms of the interregnum, this is not intended to argue that the interregnum century mattered discretely. The southern guo emerged out of the Tang and flowed into the Song. I would question if there is any historical period that can be isolated from what came before or after, and I certainly would not make that argument for the period in question. It will be readily apparent in the following discussions that the themes I am discussing had roots in the decades, even centuries, before the interregnum and continued to develop for many decades after. My point is not that the southern guo need to be incorporated into our narrative as discrete entities without reference to a more extensive context. Rather, it is x Preface that neglect of the guo is inadequate. Whether because studying them is dif- ficult or the sources are scarce, historians have too often made the solipsistic yet default assumption that it is sufficient to note the roots of change in the Tang and their culmination in the Song. As a growing body of recent scho- larship—my own as well as that of others—has demonstrated, the southern guo can be studied, and there were important things happening.2

Table 0.1 Southern Polities in the 10th Century Location Guo Founder Dates Jiangnan Wu Xingmi 902–937 Tang Xu Zhigao 937–975 Sichuan Shu (Former) 903–925 Shu (Latter) Meng Zhixiang 935–965 LiangZhe WuYue Liu 902–978 Fujian Min 909–945 Guangnan Han 909–971 Chu 907–964 WuHan Gao Jichang 907–963

Figure 0.1 Map of Southern Polities (approximate) Preface xi Notes 1 Although the historiographical legacy has attached modifiers to several of the southern guo (i.e., “southern” Han), it is important to recognize that this was a post-interregnum convention that was developed to distinguish them from the earlier dynasties of the same name whose heritage both were consciously invoking. These modifiers were not self-referential. Clarity requires some distinction between, for example, the Tang courts of the Yellow River basin—both the great dynasty that preceded the interregnum and the Shatuo court of the tenth century— and the interregnum Jiangnan court based in the Yangtze basin. Neither the Jiangnan Tang nor the Guangnan Han referred to themselves as “southern,” so I will not identify them as such. Rather where clarity demands it, I will use the regional designations. I do this in order to emphasize the internal perspective. 2 Of my own work, see especially Clark (2007). Recent work in English includes Kurz (2011) and Wang (2011). There also is a growing body of similar work in China, including: Yang (1986), Zheng (1991), Ren (1995), Du (2001), Xu (2006), and Ng (2020). Glossary

Important Terms and Names An Chonghui 安重誨 baya rice 䆉稏 benji 本紀 bi (impropriety) 弊 bingyao Jiangnan 並夭江南 buzhuang 簿狀 Cai Xiang 蔡襄 Chajiu ku 茶酒庫 chang (tax station) 場 Chu (guo) 楚 Chen Hongjin 陳洪進 Chen Qian 陳謙 Chen Yaozi 陳堯咨 Chen Yuanguang 陳元光 Chen Zheng 陳政 Chen Zhu 陳鑄 citang 祠堂 cu you wen 粗有文 Cuan Hongda 爨弘大 Cuan Man 爨蠻 di (emperor) 帝 Dong Yuan 董源 Du Jianhui 杜建徽 Du Ling 杜稜 Du Mu 杜牧 Dushui yingtian shi 都水營田使 Du Xunhe 杜荀鶴 Du Yingzhi 杜應之 erjunzhe youyou jian 而君者優游期間 fa (law) 法 fang wu 方物 Glossary xiii Fang Tingfan 方廷範 Fang Yansun 方演孫 fatang 法堂 feng (wasp) 蠭 fengjian 封建 Feng Juan 馮涓 fensi 墳寺 futu 浮圖 Ge Hong 葛洪 ge ming 革命 Goguryeo 高句麗 gong 公 Goujian 勾踐 Gu Hongzhong 顧閎中 Gu Quanwu 顧全武 Guanghua si 光化寺 Gushi ren 固始人 Guangnan 廣南 Gong She & Sheng 龔龔 & 勝 Guo Rong 郭榮 guowang 國王 郭威 guannei 關内 Han (guo) 漢 Han Conduit 邗溝 Han Qi 韓琦 Han Wo 韓偓 yeyan tu 韓熙載夜宴圖 Han Yu 韓愈 Hangzhou badu 杭州八都 hua (transform) 化 hua li 化黎 huai (enclosure) 淮 Huainan liuhou 淮南留侯 Huainan xiaya 淮南押牙 Huang Chao 黃巢 Huangdi 皇帝 Huang Lan 黄瀾 Huang Tao 黃滔 Huitu wu 囘圖務 jiagu wen 甲骨文 jian (industrial center) 堅 Jianfu yuan 薦福院 Jiangnan 江南 Jiangnan Canal 江南河 xiv Glossary Jiangnan lu 江南錄 jiao hua 教化 jiao xiangyang zhe 交相養者 jimi zhou 羈縻州 Jingnan 荊南 jinjue 進爵 jingshe 精舍 jun guo 郡國 junwang 君王 jun zi zhidao 君子之道 Kaiping 開平 ke hu 客戶 li (ritual) 禮 李昪 Li Cunxu 李存勖 Li Delin 李德林 Li Gou 李覯 李璟 Li Xiaogong 李孝恭 li yi 禮儀 李煜 Li Yuan 李淵 Liang 梁 LiaoMan 獠蠻 Liu Bang 劉邦 liuhou 留侯 Liu Ni 劉尼 Liu Congxiao 留從校 Liu Yin 劉隱 Liuzhou 柳州 Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元 Luofeng Fu 羅峰傅 longzhou 龍舟 Lu Song 盧悚 min tian 民天 Ma Yin 馬殷 Man (ethnonym) 蠻 Meng Zhixiang 孟知祥 Mi Fu 米黻 Min (guo) 閩 ming (mandate) 命 Nanhu Zheng 南湖鄭 nanxuan 南選 nianhao 年號 nianpu 年譜 Glossary xv Ouyang Zhan 歐陽詹 pi (weir) 陂 pian ba 偏霸 puxi tu 譜希圖 錢俶 qidan 祇泹 錢鏐 Qin Zongquan 秦宗權 qing (measure) 頃 Ran Zhaoze 冉肇則 ren (empathy) 仁 rendao zhi zhun 人道之準 ruchen 儒臣 ruxue dao 儒學道 shang guo 上國 Shangqing dao 上清道 shanzei 山賊 Shatuo 沙陀 shen (spirit) 神 shi (bushel) 石 shi Manqiu 世滿酋 Shi Miyuan 史彌遠 Shi Jie 石介 shizhong 侍中 shu (cooked) 熟 Shu (guo) 蜀 shuitian 水田 shang … shu yuzha ci 上 … 書御札賜 Songwai Man 松外蠻 Song Zhiwen 宋之問 Sun En 孫恩 Tang (guo) 唐 tan yue 檀越 Tian Xi 田錫 tian (cosmos) 天 tianming 天命 Tianshi dao 天師道 tianxia 天下 Tianyou 天佑 tianzi(li) 天子(禮) wai guo 外國 wang (done) 亡 Wang Chao 王潮 Wang Dan 王旦 wangfan yu miman 忘返於靡漫 xvi Glossary Wang Jian 王建 Wang Qinrou 王欽若 Wang Pu 王朴 王深知 王延鈞 wei (illegitimate） 偽 Wei Cen 魏岑 wenhua 文化 wenming 文明 wu (martial) 武 Wu (guo) 吳 吳程 Wudoumi dao 五斗米道 wufu 五服 WuYue (guo) 吳越 Xia Song 夏竦 xiafang pirang 遐方僻壤 xiangyin li 鄉飲禮 xiangyou 相友 Xiang Yu 項籍 xingtai 行臺 xin wugui chong yinci 信巫鬼重湮祠 xin xing 新興 Xu Kai 徐鍇 徐溫 Xu Yanxiu 徐延休 Xu Xuan 徐鉉 Xu Zhigao 徐智高 xuanbu 選補 xue bowu 學博物 Yang Guang 楊廣 Yang Jian 楊堅 Yang 楊隆演 楊溥 Yang Shilin 楊士林 Yang Xuanzhi 楊衒之 楊渥 Yang Xi 楊羲 Yang Xingmi 楊行密 Yang You 楊侑 yaozei 妖賊 yi (heterodoxy) 異 yin si 淫祀 Yin Zhu 尹洙 ying tang 影堂 Glossary xvii yingtian jun 營田軍 yiyi zhiyi 以夷制夷 yi zu 藝祖 Yu Jing 余靖 Yuan Dezhao 元德昭 Yue (ethnonym) 越 Yuhu Chen 玉湖陳 zhaigong 齋供 zhang (measure) 丈 Zhang Chang 張昌 Zhang (Dao)Ling 張(道)陵 Zhang Ji 張繼 Zhang Jiuling 張九齡 zhaobao shilang 招寳侍郎 Zheng Boyu 鄭伯玉 Zheng Gao 鄭皋 Zhengkai 正開 Zheng Sheng 鄭生 Zheng Xihan 鄭希韓 Zheng Yun & Zhen 筠 & 震 zheng tong 正通 zhi li yi jing bangguo 制禮以經邦國 zhong chen 忠臣 Zhu Can 朱燦 zhu hu 主戶 朱溫 Zhu Youzhen 朱友貞 zhuangyuan 狀元 Zhuzi Fang 朱紫方 zi (honorific) 字 zi fen 自奮

1 Introduction

The orthodox narrative of Chinese history is structured around dynastic periods. Although often heuristically useful, the dynastic approach minimizes periods of dynastic instability and turnover, periods that saw some of East Asia’s most important social and cultural change. These essays are devoted to one such period, the century-long interregnum that divided the Tang and Song dynasties. Although the breakdown of imperial authority that launched the century and the reconsolidation that restored it extend the interregnum well beyond the five decades embraced by the orthodox label Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (907–960), for much of that era China was divided between a weak imperial structure in the north and a collection of smaller polities that concurrently ruled across the south with varying degrees of stability and success. Such periods of dynastic breakdown and division are awkward, often poorly documented, and contrary to some of the underlying premises of that narrative, central to which is the presumed normality of what I shall call the “holistic empire.” The model for this empire was first established late in the third century BCE by the self-anointed “First Emperor,” who through force consolidated a fractious congeries of principalities that for roughly 500 years had competed for control of the Central (or “North China”) Plain. This plain, which has long been defined as the cultural heartland of the Chinese world, is centered around the lower stretch of the Yellow River that lies east of the Taihang Mountains. Having welded together these princi- palities under his authoritarian rule, which realized a long-held dream of both the political and cultural classes that derived from the vicarious memory of such unity in the “golden age” of the long ago, the “emperor” (di) then launched a campaign of conquest into the south. When he was fin- ished, for the first time, an empire embraced the four major west–east river networks: the Yellow, Huai, Yangtze, and West, or Pearl, Rivers, that together drain the vast majority of the area we call “China.” Though the Qin dynasty that the First Emperor established was short-lived (221–206 BCE), following a brief civil war it was succeeded by the Han dynasty, which lasted in total for more than four centuries (206 BCE–220 CE) with a brief interruption at the beginning of the Common Era. Although DOI: 10.4324/9781003197249-1 2 Introduction Qin, which was notable for its stringent social and political policies known as “Legalism,” is treated in the orthodox narrative with extreme distaste, Han is celebrated as one of China’s greatest epochs. Late in the second century CE, however, as the vigor of the imperial model waned, a pattern of rebellion that had been a constant undercurrent throughout the Qin/Han era gained unprecedented energy with the addition of millenarian overtones, leading to a dynastic collapse. The third century was an era of turmoil that included both holistic, but superficial, consolidation and regional division. Finally, early in the fourth century an onslaught of invasion from the northern peripheries chased the Jin dynasty imperial court that had briefly restored the holistic empire to the south. The court’s flight was joined by many of the leading families of the empire. Collectively they found refuge in the Yangtze River basin, a region that heretofore had never been thought to be civilized. For nearly three centuries, the era the orthodox narrative calls the Era of Northern and Southern Dynasties, the Yellow River basin and Central Plain were under the rule of non-Sinitic conquering peoples while a succession of self-professed Sinitic dynasties ruled in the south from their Yangtze basin refuge. This era of division was brought to an end when Yang Jian (541–604) proclaimed the Sui dynasty in 581 and through force forged a new era of holistic unity, bringing north and south together under one imperial admin- istration. Looking backwards at that moment, however, an observer may well have asked if the holistic empire was not the aberration. Throughout the millennial sweep of history the holistic empire had only been in place for slightly more than four centuries. Unprecedented before the Qin/Han empire, the division that followed the collapse of Han holism had lasted virtually as long as the holistic empire. Through the intervening centuries a distinctive, hybrid culture had evolved among the cultural elite of the south, one that had Sinitic roots, but was strongly influenced by local traditions. As Arthur Wright observed decades ago,

By the mid-sixth century a “southern” style of life had emerged… The [northern] immigrants by this time had found rice substitutes for their favorite millet-flour dishes. Modes of address, ways of greeting others had become sharply different from northern ways… Food and dress, as well as manners, likewise had their distinctive southern styles.1

This was a hybrid culture that drew as heavily on indigenous southern tra- ditions, traditions that were not Sinitic, as it did on the Sinitic heritage of the immigrants who defined a new elite class. In addition to such essential fea- tures as language, the array of which across the south generally fell into either the Austronesian or Austro-Asiatic families in contrast to the Sino- Tibetan roots of the north, and diet, which was based on rice rather than the dry land grains including millet, sorghum, and gaoliang, as well as a bit of wheat, that were featured in northern cuisine, these included the distinctive Introduction 3 southern approach to the numinous. As Ban Gu, in his monograph on the empire’s geography in the “History of the [Former] Han Dynasty,” wrote:

The lands south of the Yangtze (jiangnan; i.e., the lands of the Man and Yue, the two generalized ethnonyms used by northern scholars to refer to the myriad distinct cultures of the south) are vast, … The people put faith in shamans and demons and embrace barbaric rites (xin wugui chong yinci).2

Underneath the hybrid culture of the social and political elite and beyond the urban nodes where the impact of Sinitic culture was strongest, the ancient and diverse indigenous cultures of the south persisted. There was an endur- ing southern identity that resented the imposition of Sinitic norms, mani- fested in a pattern of indigenous resistance.3 Often this was passively expressed in cultural heterodoxy, but sometimes it broke out in open rebel- lion. An example of the former is the Way of the Five Pecks of Rice (Wudoumi dao), a millenarian Daoist movement that evolved into the Way of the Celestial Masters (Tianshi dao). Although the Celestial Masters even- tually came to an accommodation with Sinitic orthodoxy, in its initial mani- festation this was a radical critique and a medium of indigenous identity. The movement emerged in the mountainous fringe of the Plain in Sichuan, far to the west of the heavily Sinicized urban centers of the Lower Yangtze basin, as the Han dynasty began to unravel. As had happened across so much of the south, on the Chengdu Plain a hybridized elite culture had emerged during the centuries of Han control, but that culture did not pene- trate into the mountains that surround the Plain; they remained the redoubt of pre-Sinitic indigenous cultures. Late in the second century a shaman named Zhang Ling (later Zhang Daoling) began to offer healing rituals in exchange for a tithe. Later hagiographies claim that Zhang was born in a remote corner of inland modern in the border region between the Central Lands and the culturally problematic world of the Nearer South, which raises questions about his own ethnicity. How or why he moved to the mountainous fringe of the Chengdu Plain, or even whether the tradition is valid, is unknown, but at the very least he had abandoned claims to Sinitic orthodoxy. As he attracted growing numbers, Zhang organized his followers into a theocratic state, which thrived in the politically fluid context of the early third century. Zhang’s autonomous theocracy folded into the post-Han order as his grandson and heir came to terms with the Cao family who had inher- ited Han legitimacy over the Central Plain. Celestial Masters evangelists, however, took the movement down the Yangtze where they carried on its shamanistic challenge to Sinitic orthodoxy. As the movement spread through the South it became a vehicle for a regionalist southern cultural autonomy in the face of the hegemonic discourse of the north. This autonomy could manifest in two ways: the resentment of the immigrant Sinitic population 4 Introduction toward the northern elites who dismissed them as uncultured barbarians; and the resentment of non-Sinitic indigenes against Sinitic hegemony in all its forms. The former especially emerged in new forms of Daoism, most notably the Highest Clarity (Shangqing) movement that has its roots in the iconoclasm of Ge Hong (283–343). Michel Strickmann has said of Ge Hong that “he clearly comes at the end of an autonomous local tradition” of spiritualism that drew on indigenous southern traditions predating the fourth century influx of northern aristocrats.4 It was Yang Xi (ca.330–386), however, who presented the new movement, which Isabelle Robinet has called the reasser- tion of a distinctive southern tradition, through a series of texts that he claimed were revealed to him by a succession of Celestial Immortals.5 The Shangqing movement became a vehicle for the indigenous culture to counter the contempt in which the refugee northern elite held it. For many, however, the cultural challenge of movements such as Highest Clarity were insufficient responses; they turned to open rebellion. Sometimes it is quite certain the rebels were peasants of uncertain ethnicity who drew on mystical traditions that were inherently southern. In 376, for example, “Five Tigers” Zhang and “Six Roots” Lu, faced with the potent symbolism of an eclipse of the sun, rebelled; their uprising was quickly squelched, they were beheaded, and their followers eradicated.6 Other times the identity of the rebels is less certain. In 411 the garrison in Guangzhou abandoned the city following the death of its commanding officer. In response “mountain ban- dits” (shan zei)—vague, to be sure, but certainly pointing to the non-Sinitic indigenes who had retreated to the mountains of the interior in the face of Sinitic pressure for land—poured forth and took over the city, where they killed the remaining officials. They were wiped out within days.7 Uprisings such as these, which are a regular feature in the history of all premodern agrarian societies, were a nuisance. They were not, however, a threat to the new order in the South. Far more threatening, it would appear, was a pattern of rebellion that, while not overtly anti-Sinitic, was definitively anti-northern. The rebellion of Lu Song in 372 is an example. Lu, a “sorcerer bandit” (yao zei) who was inspired by the Celestial Masters movement, sought to restore a deposed emperor. When his effort was forestalled, he then led his band straight into the imperial palace before the usurper court rallied and defeated him.8 “Sorcerer bandits” are in fact a recurrent theme in the rebellions that erupted against the northern hegemony. Most appear to have been responses to particular grievances and, like Lu Song, not a threat to the established order. Occasionally, however, the challenge was both more enduring and the threat more real. In 303, for example, a tribal chieftain known to the Chinese as Zhang Chang rebelled.9 Beginning with a band of “several thousand” of his fellow tribesmen, Zhang Chang soon was joined by “rootless vagrants who were avoiding compulsory military service.”“Within weeks” his fol- lowers, drawn from throughout the central Yangtze valley, had grown to Introduction 5 30,000. As his rebellion blossomed Zhang “announced in words of sorcery” that he needed a “‘sage’ to be our leader,” for which he recruited a bureau- cratic functionary. He had the “sage” change his surname to Liu, invoking that of the Han dynasty ruling family, and claim to be a descendent of the Han emperors. Zhang then gave him the title “Phoenix Emperor” and pro- claimed that like a phoenix the Han would rise again. In contrast to the rebellion of Lu Song, Zhang had advanced his to the point of invoking the cosmological and political symbols of imperial government. They adopted “crimson caps” and “used horse tails as beards,” which prompted officials to rant, “The sorcerer bandits are nothing more than a rabble of dogs and goats. With their red heads and furry faces they dance with knives and leap about with spears, but as weapons they are useless.” Over the next several months the court rallied its forces and finally regained control, but not before many thousands through the middle Yangtze valley, both indigenous non- Sinitic peoples and Sinitic migrants, had registered their opposition to Jin rule. Lu Song and others manifested discontent from within the indigenized Sinitic elite of the South. Zhang Chang drew heavily on discontent among the indigenous, non-Sinitic population. Both represented a threat to the orthodox Sinitic order that had been brought to the south by elite refugees who fled the grasslands invasions. The most threatening and best docu- mented uprising against the northern hegemony, however, was the rebellion of the “sorcerer bandit” Sun En (d. 402).

Eight prefectures altogether followed Sun En in rebellion and slaugh- tered their magistrates. Within ten days several hundred thousand had rallied to him.10

In the following months and years, Sun led his followers on a campaign of vengeful terror along the coast in the region and south as far as Hangzhou Bay.11 When the court dispatched forces to confront him, he simply fled back to the off-shore islands that were his refuge; when his opponents retreated, he reoccupied the mainland coastal regions. Sun En apparently drew his support heavily from the non-Sinitic indigen- ous peoples. For example, his forces are referred to as “wasps” (feng),12 a disparaging term that was a calculated reference to non-Sinitic southerners. Subtle hints of this include Sun’s invocation of Goujian, the ruler of the ancient Yue kingdom and an unlikely model unless he was appealing to the historical memory of the men he led, for whom Goujian might have evoked a sense of ethnic pride.13 Perhaps the most persuasive evidence that Sun relied on non-Sinitic support, however, is his apparent reliance on the nautical skills of his followers to build his naval fleet of “over one thousand ‘tower boats.’”14 On this one source comments, “The vessels were extraordinary. The ‘hundred surnames’ could not do this.”15 The “hundred surnames” is an ancient term the elite had long used to refer to the common mass in 6 Introduction orthodox culture; it is unlikely that it would be used to refer to non-Sinitic masses, who lacked surnames. We can conclude, therefore, that the people who built Sun’s navy were not of the “hundred surnames”; they must have been non-Sinitic adherents. Although the era of holistic unity under the Sui/Tang empire (589–907) brought about major change in the south, it never resolved the tensions that distinguished it from the north that are manifest in these and numerous other, less-well documented uprisings. Northerners continued to view men from the south as uncultured, tainted by their close association with the indigenous barbarians, and the physical south as a land of cultural sloth and unimaginable danger. For example, the Tang poet Song Zhiwen (660–712) described the south thus:

The steaming lakes make the waters boil; The heat from the mountains births clouds of fire. Apes leap about, now and again calling shrilly. Raptors circle above; none dare make a sound.16

Decades later Zhang Ji (ca.765–ca.830), in a poem commemorating the departure of a friend to take up office in the south, expressed similar disgust:

So, so far away, a wandering guest… Surrounded by malaria, your body wasting away. A land of blue mountains and endless travel, Your hair will whiten and still you will not return. In the lands across the sea they fight on elephants, In the lands of the Man they use silver in the markets. One family, separated across many places. Who is it who will see the spring in the far south?17

It was, perhaps, the surviving corpus of Liu Zongyuan (773–819) that most fulsomely expressed the horror in which northerners held the south. In a letter to a colleague composed probably in 804 when he was in exile the remote uplands of Hunan where Sinitic settlers were few and indigenous peoples many, Liu expressed his loathing for the world that surrounded him:

Yongzhou is far to the south of Chu; it is a land where there is no dif- ference between the Zhuang and the Yue. When I am depressed, I go out and about. But as I go about, I find much to fear for through the wilds there are poisonous snakes and great wasps. Whether I look to the sky or regard the land, to walk but an inch is exhausting.18

Not only did Liu hate the land. He was discouraged that the indigenous southerners had little interest in the lessons he sought to teach. In the Introduction 7 commemoration of the reconstruction of a Buddhist temple composed in 817 while in further exile in Liuzhou in the far southwest, he complained:

The people of Yue believe in omens and that they can easily be killed. They reject the transformation of civilization (hua) and abuse human empathy (ren). Faced with severe illness they turn to shamans, who will divine with chickens. [To beseech the intervention of the gods] they will initially offer a small sacrifice. If that does not suffice, they will offer a sacrifice of middling size. And if that does not suffice, they will offer a grand sacrifice. If they are still not cured, they will take leave of their kin and make preparations for their death, concluding that “the gods will not prop me up.” Then they will cease eating, cover their face, and die. Consequently their houses turn to ruins, their fields go wild, and their livestock do not multiply. If you try to manage them with rituals, they respond with stubbornness. If you restrain them with punishments, they run away. They only acknowledge Buddhist mandala and serve the spirits.19

Comparable laments by southerners about northern condescension are few if any, yet there are hints. For example, when the great essayist Han Yu (768– 824) eulogized his examination classmate Ouyang Zhan (758–801), who had been the first native of in southern Fujian to earn a jinshi degree, he recalled:

The land of MinYue is abundantly fertile. It is blessed with the joys of scenery and wildlife. Even though there have been cultivated men who understood literature and administration as well as anyone from the heartland (shang guo), heretofore none have been willing to go forth and serve.20

Han explained that Ouyang Zhan’s forebearers had held low-ranking district offices in Fujian, an allusion to a system known as “southern selection” (nanxuan), facilitated examinations under the Tang through which men from Jiangnan, Huainan, or Fujian were recruited to hold local offices in the south that were too remote and politically insignificant to appeal to northern scholars. Yet, though they had shown an orientation toward serving the court, they had not been “willing” to engage fully. Ouyang Zhan was the first among his peers in Fujian who we know took the imperial examination. We cannot know if that was because all prior aspirants had been tracked to the “southern selection” examinations or because they had been discouraged by the explicit northern condescension. The end result, however, was that southerners were marginalized, and that was because their culture was suspect. Nevertheless, at least since the reintegration of by the Sui/ in the middle of the first millennium CE orthodox history has taken the holistic 8 Introduction empire as the norm, eras of division as aberrations. Illustratively, the eminent contemporary historian Wang Gungwu, in reissuing his pathbreaking study of the Five Dynasties of the interregnum north, retitled it Divided China: Preparing for Reunification, 883–947.21 It is the premise of the following essays, on the other hand, that “reunification” was by no means a given, that even as the Tang collapsed and a new era of division began, the holistic empire was not yet firmly established. On the contrary, I will argue, it was the reso- lution to the division of the interregnum in the later tenth and eleventh cen- turies that embedded commitment to the holistic empire in the scholarly and bureaucratic elite of the south and turned the empire from one that was dominated by the north into one in which the long-demeaned south took precedence.

Notes 1 Wright (1979), 50. 2 Han shu 28b: 141b. 3 The following draws very directly on Clark (2016), Chapter 2, “Northern Perceptions of the Pre-Sinitic South.” 4 Strickmann (1977), 8. 5 Robinet (1977), 115. 6 Qutan Xida, 9. 7 Songshu, 100:7b. 8 Jinshu, 8:23b. The fullest discussion of Lu’s plot is in ZZTJ 103:3260. 9 My account relies on ZZTJ 85:2680–2682; 2683–2684. 10 Jinshu 100:32a. 11 Jinshu 10:4a. 12 Jinshu 100:32b and ZZTJ 1111:3499. 13 Jinshu 100:32b. 14 ZZTJ 112:3524. 15 Jinshu 100:34b. 16 Song Zhiwen 宋之問, “Ru Longzhou jiang” 入瀧州江, (Yuding) QuanTang shi, 53:6a–6b. 17 Zhang Ji 張籍, “Song nan qian ke” 送南遷客, (Yuding) QuanTang shi, 384:4b– 5a. Schafer (1967), 21, offers an alternative translation. Schafer devotes his entire book to images of the south among Tang literati. While some loved it, to most of those he profiles it was hateful, a place of death. 18 Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, “Yu Li Hanlin Jian shu” 與李翰林建書 Liu hedong ji 30:494–496, quoting from 494. 19 “Liuzhou fu Dayunsi ji” 柳州復大雲寺記, Liu hedong ji, 28:465–466. For a parallel translation, see Schafer (1967), 100. 20 Han Yu, “Ouyang sheng’ai ci” 歐陽生哀辭, Changli wenji, 22:3a. 21 Wang (2007), a reissue of Wang (1963). Notes

Preface 1 Although the historiographical legacy has attached modifiers to several of the southern guo (i.e., “southern” Han), it is important to recognize that this was a post-interregnum convention that was developed to distinguish them from the earlier dynasties of the same name whose heritage both were consciously invoking. These modifiers were not self-referential. Clarity requires some distinction between, for example, the Tang courts of the Yellow River basin—both the great dynasty that preceded the interregnum and the Shatuo court of the tenth century— and the interregnum Jiangnan court based in the Yangtze basin. Neither the Jiangnan Tang nor the Guangnan Han referred to themselves as “southern,” so I will not identify them as such. Rather where clarity demands it, I will use the regional designations. I do this in order to emphasize the internal perspective. 2 Of my own work, see especially Clark (2007). Recent work in English includes Kurz (2011) and Wang (2011). There also is a growing body of similar work in China, including: Yang (1986), Zheng (1991), Ren (1995), Du (2001), Xu (2006), and Ng (2020).

Chapter 1 1 Wright (1979), 50. 2 Han shu 28b: 141b. 3 The following draws very directly on Clark (2016), Chapter 2, “Northern Perceptions of the Pre-Sinitic South.” 4 Strickmann (1977), 8. 5 Robinet (1977), 115. 6 Qutan Xida, 9. 7 Songshu, 100:7b. 8 Jinshu, 8:23b. The fullest discussion of Lu’s plot is in ZZTJ 103:3260. 9 My account relies on ZZTJ 85:2680–2682; 2683–2684. 10 Jinshu 100:32a. 11 Jinshu 10:4a. 12 Jinshu 100:32b and ZZTJ 1111:3499. 13 Jinshu 100:32b. 14 ZZTJ 112:3524. 15 Jinshu 100:34b. 16 Song Zhiwen 宋之問, “Ru Longzhou jiang” 入瀧州江, (Yuding) QuanTang shi, 53:6a–6b. 17 Zhang Ji 張籍, “Song nan qian ke” 送南遷客, (Yuding) QuanTang shi, 384:4b–5a. Schafer (1967), 21, offers an alternative translation. Schafer devotes his entire book to images of the south among Tang literati. While some loved it, to most of those he profiles it was hateful, a place of death. 18 Liu Zongyuan 柳宗元, “Yu Li Hanlin Jian shu” 與李翰林建書 Liu hedong ji 30:494–496, quoting from 494. 19 “Liuzhou fu Dayunsi ji” 柳州復大雲寺記, Liu hedong ji, 28:465–466. For a parallel translation, see Schafer (1967), 100. 20 Han Yu, “Ouyang sheng’ai ci” 歐陽生哀辭, Changli wenji, 22:3a. 21 Wang (2007), a reissue of Wang (1963).

Chapter 2 1 Oxford English Dictionary Online (www.OED.com, accessed September, 2020). 2 Kenneth Pomeranz, in a seminal book on eighteenth and nineteenth century his- tory, has explained Europe’s ascendance over China and the world explicitly in terms of the wealth the British extracted from North America; see Pomeranz (2000). 3 See Jiao (2007). 4 Sima Qian, Shi ji, 40:1a. 5 Yantie lun, 8:26b, translated by Holcombe (2001), 21, with minor adaptation. 6 It should be noted that as I am using it the term “southerner” masks some important differences. It included the myriad local and regional cultures and peo- ples of the south, but it also included those who had migrated from the north and adopted the south as their home. From the perspective of the educated elite of the north there was little to choose between the two, but among them the difference was important. See the relevant discussions in Clark (2016). 7 Charles Holcombe has argued that the “invaders” were actually non-Sinitic bands that had long been settled inside the empire’s boundaries, thus the narrative of external invasion is flawed; see Holcombe (2001), 116–128. 8 Chenshu, 35:486. A later tradition added four additional surnames: Zhan 詹, Qiu 邱,He何, and Hu 胡. Whereas the four surnames listed in the Chenshu have long been very common, the latter four are very uncommon. 9 See Clark (2016), Part One, “Transitions,” where this is the central theme. See also the relevant discussions in Clark (2007). 10 See Clark (2016), Chapter 3, “The Sinitic Accommodation with the South.” 11 See, for example, Paul (1984). 12 Lewis (2009), 94–102, with references. 13 On this, consult the works of Francesca Bray: Bray (1984) and Bray (1986). See also Amano (1962). For a simple metric, see wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet#Comparison_with _other_major_staple_foods (accessed August 16, 2020). Bray (1986), 15, compares a yield of 3–4:1 for the dryland cereals to 75–150:1 for rice under traditional agricultural methods. 14 ZZTJ, 175:5438. 15 On the rise of Sui and campaigns to restore the holistic empire, see Wright (1979), 110–114. 16 On Yang Jian’s construction of a new capital near the ancient Han capital Chang’an in the basin, see Lewis (2009), 251–254. 17 ZZTJ 175: 5469. 18 ZZTJ 176:5492. 19 ZZTJ 180:5618. 20 ZZTJ 181:5652. 21 Lewis (2009), 255. 22 ZZTJ 181:5654. All sections of the southern canal system were explicitly built large enough to accommodate the imperial barges (longzhou) by which Yang Guang toured the south on trips that originated from his capital on the Wei River. Arthur Wright has portrayed Yang Guang as enamored of the south after he spent nine years as Governor-General in ; see Wright (1979), especially 115– 119. 23 Table 1, “Regional Distribution of Chinese Households, A.D. 2–1948,” in Hart- well (1982), 369. Following the macro-regional model developed by G. William Skinner, Hartwell divided his data into regions. Two regions were in the north: Northwest and North (Central Plain). He divided southern data into five: Ling- nan, Southeast, Upper Yangtze, Middle Yangtze, and Lower Yangtze. There is no data for the Southeast (primarily Fujian) in the Sui figures. It should be noted that not all assessments of the relative weight of northern/southern population agree with Hartwell’s data, although his conclusions are largely accepted. 24 The last Tang emperor yielded the throne in 907. However, following the Huang Chao Rebellion (874–884) the court was never able to reconsolidate its authority. 25 Wright (1979), 57. 26 Suishu 79:1787. The identification in this passage rests on the claim that she was a Lü 吕 from the northeast, where the Lü were a prominent Chinese lineage. 27 Wright (1979), 71. The exception to whom Wright referred was Li Delin. 28 ZZTJ 187: 5838–5839. On the meaning of xingtai, see Hucker (1985), 246, #2598, where the author explains xingtai were “established temporarily at the beginning of the dynasty to administer each newly subjugated area.” 29 ZZTJ 188:5887 and 191:5990–91. Accounts such as this appear numerous times in the annals of the first years of the Tang; see ZZTJ 188–191 passim. 30 ZZTJ 188:5879–80. 31 ZZTJ 199:6255–56. 32 Note that terms such as Man and Yue are generalized ethnonyms used by northern scholars to summarily characterize the disparate peoples and cultures of the south. To describe an individual as either is akin to our contemporary characterization of peoples and cultures of Central America as “Hispanic,” a generalized ethnonym that covers a wide range of local realities. 33 For this and the following, see the relevant passages in ZZTJ and Yue Shi, Taiping huanyu ji (henceforth TPHYJ) 102:2b. See also Clark (2016), 40–44, with relevant citations. 34 See Clark (1982), and Clark (2016), 117–122. 35 Composite translation and summary of BMTZ 1:11–12 and MS 41:1012. 36 Discussed in Clark (1990). 37 On Zhang Jiuling and his wider family, see XTS 72c:2681–2707. See also the more extended discussion in Clark (2016), 55–59. 38 Table 1 and Table 2, “Periods of Development of Chinese Macroregions, A.D. 2– 1948,” in Hartwell (1982), 375. 39 See Twitchett and Stargardt (2002). 40 Flecker (2005) and Heng (2014). 41 There have been many discussions of the Tang market system in a range of lan- guages, but see especially Twitchett (1966), drawing on Japanese scholarship. Though dated, it remains authoritative. 42 See, for example, Chang (1961). 43 Twitchett (1979), 29. See also Chang (1961), and Jiang and Zou (2010). 44 On this challenge, see Twitchett (1970). See also Twitchett and Wechsler (1979), 277–278, and Twitchett (1979b), 355–356. 45 See Twitchett (1970), 51–58. See also Wechsler (1979), 209–210. 46 Peterson (1979), 486. See also Lewis (2009b), who quotes the poet Du Mu (fl. 830– 852) in almost identical terms (p. 12). 47 For both the patterns of unrest in the mid-eighth century and the Huang Chao Rebellion, see Somers (1979), especially 723–736. 48 See Clark (2009), especially 133–158. See also Clark (2011), 47–78. Chapter 3 1 This is in fact a misnomer as across the south there were never more than seven “kingdoms” at any one time. Successive regimes in Sichuan and Jiangnan are counted separately, plus one “kingdom” lay far to the northwest and represented a very distinct experience. 2 Abu Zayd Hasan al-S-ıra-f-ı (2017), 30. One needn’t take literally the figure 120,000 recounted by Abu Zayd to realize that the alien population in Guangzhou was a large and significant force. 3 The etymology website Hanziyuan identifies 270 variants of the character in jiagu wen, as the oracle bone script is known; see https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%8E%8B (accessed June 3, 2019). 4 Shang shu, “Hong fan” 洪範 #7. 5 Shi jing, “Shangxun” 商頌, “Yin wu” 殷武 #2, adapted from the translation of James Legge reproduced at the same site. 6 Xunzi, “Wang ba” 王霸 #2. As we shall see below, Mengzi is an exception; his text routinely identifies by name the rulers of guo as wang. 7 Zhou li, “Tianguan zhongzai” 天官冢宰 #1. 8 See https://hanziyuan.net/#%E7%8E%8B (accessed June 3, 2019). 9 Zhou yi, “shi” 師, #7. 10 Shi Jiao, second scroll 卷下 #111. 11 Mengzi, “Liang Hui wang shang” 梁惠王上, #1. 12 See https://hanziyuan.net/#%E5%B8%9D (accessed June 5, 2019). 13 Translated by Robert Eno, in Chinese Religions in Practice, edited by Donald Lopez (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 46 and 47. 14 Mengzi, “Gongsun Chou shang” 公孫丑上 #8. 15 Michael Loewe, “The Former Han Dynasty,” in the Cambridge , volume 1, “The Ch’in and Han Empires, 221 B.C.–A.D. 220,” edited by Denis Twitchett and Michael Loewe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 103–222. 16 Zuo Zhuan, “Lord Xi 24th year” 僖公二十四. 17 Suishu, 4:90. 18 Ming jili 30:9b. 19 Tongdian 19:28b. 20 See XTS 188:5451–5461, XWDS 61:747–752, and Wu (1983), 1:1–30. On this and below, see also Clark (2011), 47–78. 21 ZZTJ 255:8290. Yang is described as the “Huainan xiaya,” a semi-official policing office that he had earned for his “bravery” in confronting rebels. 22 ZZTJ 257:8364. At this time, as both the “basic annals” (benji) chapters of XTS and the ZZTJ record, several of the contestants across the collapsing empire pro- claimed themselves Commander (liuhou). Thus Yang’s self-proclamation was very much in keeping with the tenor of the moment. 23 ZZTJ 257:8366. 24 ZZTJ 257:8371. 25 ZZTJ 257:8373. 26 ZZTJ 261:8513. 27 ZZTJ 262:8543. 28 ZZTJ 263:8573. 29 The following draws on Clark (2011) and Clark (2009), 140–143. 30 JWDS 133:1768, XWDS 67:838 and ZZTJ 263:8574. 31 XWDS 67:839 and ZZTJ 263:8575. 32 ZZTJ 264:8613. 33 ZZTJ 266:8674. 34 JWDS 4:68. 35 There was one additional southern polity, Jingnan, a small independent princi- pality at the juncture of the with the Yangtze that is today the mega- lopolis of Wuhan. The ruler, Gao Jichang (858–929), had been a general under Zhu Wen, who appointed him the Commander of Jingnan; see Taiping guangji 266:5a, which says the appointment was made in the last years of the Tang, and ZZTJ 266:8680, which says it was in 907. Neither Gao nor his successors in Jing- nan, which survived as an in dependent polity until conquered by the Song in 963, were ever named wang. 36 ZZTJ 266:8675 and 8685. When Wang broached the idea with his civil and mili- tary advisors, they cautioned: “Although our Lord remains loyal to the Tang, the Tang is dead.” 37 ZZTJ 266:8676. The ally was , not to be confused with Liu Yin, the junwang. 38 ZZTJ 266:8680. 39 ZZTJ 266:8675. 40 XWDS 71:881. 41 XWDS 71:881. 42 XWDS 71:881. 43 ZZTJ 270:8843–44 44 This and below from ZZTJ 276:9013. 45 ZZTJ 276:9011 and XWDS 62:3b. 46 Liu recognized that he was the only southern ruler not promoted to wang. In 916 he petitioned for the title, but was refused. Liu then denounced the northern court as illegitimate and broke all ties. His assumption of the imperial title followed. 47 ZZTJ 270:8821, 277:9073, and 278:9102 respectively. 48 XWDS 67:840. Because The Qian family never rejected the legitimacy of the northern courts, they along among the southern rulers earned the praise of ; see XWDS 67: 843–44. 49 This has been the theme of much of my most recent work. See especially Clark (2016), Clark (2018), and Clark (2020). 50 ZZTJ 294:9583. 51 ZZTJ 292:9524. 52 ZZTJ 292:9525. 53 ZZTJ 292:9525–27. Wang Pu’s proposal to attack the south has been translated by Peter Lorge (2013), 111–112. Lorge further discussed the debate in the Zhou court that produced Wang Pu’s proposal in Lorge (2015), Chapter 3, “The pivot of the tenth century” (accessed on Google Books, January 8, 2019; no pagination).

Chapter 4 1 Originally published as Clark (2016b), with minor editorial modification. 2 On this, see Kurz (2003). See also Ouyang (2004), “Introduction.” Readers should note that there never were ten guo at any given moment. In the south Jiangnan and Sichuan both had successor kingdoms—Wu and Tang in the former, and Former and Latter Shu in Sichuan. The so-called tenth guo was the regime in ; its experience was dramatically different from any of the southern guo and so it is omitted in the following discussion. 3 A notable exception is Twitchett and Smith (2009). 4 See “Zheng tong lun san shou” 正統論三首, Wenzhong ji 16:1a–11b and the extensive discussion in juan 59. See also QSW, vol. 17, juan 729: 703–715. 5 XWDS, 2:21. 6 In contemporary usage this term is a compound translating the English word “revolution.” However, historically it meant “to overthrow (ge) the mandate (ming) from below.” Thus the terms are a verb and a noun, so I render them separately. 7 For a discussion that considers some other dimensions of the era, see Clark (2012). See also Clark (2009). 8 XWDS, 61:747. See also Ouyang (2004), 467. 9 See especially Standen (2007). Owen Lattimore arguably was the first to explore this relationship in his monumental Inner Asian Frontiers of China (Lattimore, 1940). For a discussion that carries the theme into the late imperial era, see Rawski (2015). 10 See especially the speech of Wang Pu, in which Wang urged Guo Rong to recreate the Tang empire, ZZTJ 292:9525–26. 11 Twitchett (1966). 12 Twitchett (1979), 29. Although there has been much work, especially but by no means only by Chinese scholars, since Twitchett wrote these two essays, it has not changed his central conclusions. Relevant comments and citations can also be found in McDermott and Shiba (2015), especially pp. 321–385. 13 See Clark (2011) for a more detailed discussion. 14 Elvin (1973), 298–315. 15 Wujun tujing xuji, 3:1b. 16 Fan Zhongyan, a:14b–15a. 17 Wujun zhi, 19:10a. 18 MS 3:76. 19 Sanshan zhi, 16:4b. 20 BMTZ, 22:455. 21 BMTZ 22:465; MS 8:190. 22 SGCQ 40:597. 23 SGCQ 100:1430. 24 Songshi, 173:4183. 25 Cai Xiang, Duanming ji, 6:11a. 26 Song huiyao jiben, “shihuo” 食貨63:164b. The standard work in English on Champa rice in China, although dated, is Ho (1956); more recently, see Bray (1984). 27 Morohashi, et al. (1957–60), vol 8, 637, entry 25368, explains that baya was not the name of a strain but of a quality of rice. Thus it does not refer to anything specific. 28 ZZTJ 266:8702. (Former) Shu had the “Storehouse for Tea and Wine” (Chajiu ku), but its purpose is less clear; see ZZTJ 279:9125. 29 ZZTJ 274:8832. 30 ZZTJ 274:8832. 31 Sheng Jun 盛均, “Taolin chang ji” 桃林場記,inYongchun zhou zhi, 15:1b. 32 Zhan Dunren 詹敦仁, “Chujian Anxi xian ji” 初建安溪縣記,inGujin tushu jicheng, 1051:50b. Although the text is undated, other information places Zhan Dunren in the interregnum. 33 I have discussed these markets in Clark (1992); see also the relevant passages in Clark (1991). 34 On Guangzhou’s long role in the trade, see Wang (1958). 35 JWDS 135:1808. 36 Wuguo gushi, b:9b–10a. 37 TPHYJ 102:3a. 38 SGCQ 95:1377. 39 Liao shi, 2:16. 40 The diplomatic missions are recorded in XWDS 68:852, while the bronze Buddhas and the are referenced in the (Daoguang) Fujian tongzhi (道光) 福建通志 264, cited in Zhu (1984), 162. 41 Wang (2004). 42 There have been many essays, both scholarly and popular, devoted to this wreck. As examples of quality scholarly discussion, see Guy (2010), and Flecker (2000). 43 Heng (2014). See also Zhu (1992). Zhu emphasizes Yangzhou’s critical role as the juncture between the and Yangtze Rivers. 44 On the excavation of the Intan wreck, see Flecker (2005). 45 See Twitchett and Stargardt (2002). 46 The exception would be the iron coins minted by the Han guo. Twitchett, however, proposes these may have been the trading currency of crewmembers rather than exports per se. 47 Liu shi zupu 留氏族譜 (undated manuscript; collection of the Quanzhou Museum), cited in Xu (2006), 235. 48 Both the thirteenth-century Zhufan zhi 諸蕃志 and fourteenth century Diaoyi zhilüe 島夷誌略 have multiple references metalwares among the items exported from Quanzhou; see also Shiba (1968), 139–140. 49 “Earliest compartment kiln and bluish white porcelain found at Fanchang, Province,” Chinese Archaeology/Kaogu (May, 2015), accessed at http://www.kaogu. cn/en/News/New_discoveries/2015/0507/50172.html (January, 2017). 50 See Xu (2006), 216–219.

Chapter 5 1 Originally published as Clark (2017), with minor editorial modification. 2 Hartwell (1982), Table 1. The relevant numbers are reproduced in Chapter 4, Table 4.1, “Census data, 742 versus 1080,” with citations. 3 I discuss this in Clark (2007), Chapter 2, “The Composition of Elite Kin Groups in the Mulan River Valley.” 4 I have explained some of the reasoning behind this argument in Clark (2016b), 8–13. 5 I have compiled this information based on late imperial gazetteers. See tongzhi, 31.3a–6b, Fujian tongzhi, 33.2a–9a, and tongzhi, 123:10b–14b. 6 XTS 45.1180. 7 Han Yu, “Ouyang sheng’ai ci,” Changli wenji, 22:2b. 8 See Clark (2016), especially Chapters 2 and 3. 9 See especially Peterson (1979), 464–560, including citations. See also the relevant discussion in Twitchett (1970). 10 See, for example, Clark (2009), 133–205. 11 SGCQ 84:1221–22. 12 Zhejiang tongzhi, 171:6b–7a. 13 I have addressed the Wang family in several essays, but see Clark (2007), 48–50; much of the following discussion draws on this as well. 14 Aoyama (1962). 15 See Clark (1995). Evidence suggests that the focus on land acquisition pursued by the Fu was in fact a very common strategy among the “men of Gushi;” see especially Clark (2007), Chapter 2. 16 See Fan Jiong and Lin Yu, WuYue beishi, 4.23a–23b & 28b–29a. 17 JWDS 24.6b; SGCQ 11.1a. Although Du served Yang Xingmi as the latter con- solidated his authority in Jiangnan, he did later rebel. 18 Han is among the most widely commemorated figures of the interregnum with numerous biographies; see especially XTS 183.10a–14b. 19 Fang tradition is summarized in Liu Kezhuang, “Fangshi Nanshan Jianfu ci beiji” 方氏南山薦福祠碑記, Houcun xiansheng daquanji, 93.8a–11a. The following dis- cussion derives from Clark (2007), 61–62. 20 Johannes Kurz briefly addresses the Jiangnan Tang examinations and reaches a parallel conclusion; see Kurz (2011), 69–70. 21 Changli wenji 22:2b–3a. 22 The painting and the several ways of reading it have been discussed in Lee (2010). 23 Dong Yuan’s contribution to the landscape genre is featured in almost all books on Chinese art, but see especially Hearn and Fong (1999). For a critical assessment of Dong’s work, including James Cahill’s argument that Riverbank is a forgery, see Smith and Fong (1999). 24 Mi Fu, Hua shi 7a, translated in Hearn and Fong (1999), 28. 25 See most notably Daniel Bryant’s translations in Bryant (1982). 26 See Ko (2005), especially Chapter 4, “From Ancient Texts to Current Customs: In Search of Footbinding’s Origins.” 27 Schafer (1967). 28 Han shu, 72:3080–86. Ban Gu only refers to the “two Gong” as “colleagues” (xiangyou), but they shared a character in their honorific names (zi) suggesting a close kin relationship as well. 29 Yang Xuanzhi, jialan ji, cited by Chikusa Masa’aki, “So-dai funji ko-” 宋 代墳寺考, in Chikusa (1982), 113. I follow Chikusa in interpreting qidan as “spirit hall.” 30 Discussed by Chikusa (1982), 241–300. 31 The following draws on my discussion in Clark (2007), 264–68. 32 Zheng Qiao’s comment survives only as a quotation in an untitled preface dated to 1169, compiled by Zheng Donglao 鄭東老,inNanhu Zhengshi dazongpu,no pagination. 33 See “Pushan Lingyan si beiming” 莆山靈巖寺碑銘, in Huang Tao, Puyang Huang yushi ji, 299–304. Because there is no other record of Zheng Sheng, we only spec- ulate that he was an ancestor of the three brothers. However, empirically such a speculation seems warranted and strongly supports the idea that the Zheng were linked to the temple from its founding. 34 See Clark (2007), 344–45n5. 35 On the Yanshou Weir, see Clark (2016), 122–30. 36 “Guanghua si tanyue Zheng shi shetian beiji” 光化寺檀越鄭氏舍田碑記, in Ding and Zheng (1996), 6–7. The 1169 preface referenced above adds that the donation of Zheng Gao was to benefit his parents. This text also explains that the tablet was placed “in the ancestral shrine (citang) adjacent to the Great Hall in order to pass on to later generations the depth of their history.” 37 Zheng Donglao, in Zheng Shimin, ed., Nanhu Zhengshi dazongpu, no pagination. 38 Zheng Min 鄭敏, “Nanhu shan Zhengshi citang ji” 南湖山鄭氏祠堂記, in Ding and Zheng (1996), 73–74. Min explains that the original stelae bearing prior inscriptions were destroyed. Although there were efforts to recreate the older texts, Zheng Min felt they were inadequate. 39 This and the following quotes come from “Jianfu yuan Fangshi citang ji” 薦福院 方氏祠堂記, in Liu Kezhuang, Houcun xiansheng daquanji, 93.8b–9a. 40 See Clark (2007), Chapter 7. 41 Sima Qian, Shi ji, 31.1445. 42 Zheng Qiao, Tongzhi 25.439a. 43 Lewis (2009), 181. There are, in fact, numerous studies of the Nine-Rank System and its social impact. A good source for further references is Grafflin (1981). 44 There have been several studies in English that have addressed this question, but see especially Johnson (1977). Tackett (2017) also has relevant information. 45 Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修, “Yu Wang Shenfu lun shipu tie” 與王深甫論世譜帖, QSW 17:699:101–2; translated by Johnson (1977b), 58. 46 Johnson (1977b), 51. 47 Puyang Yuhu Chenshi jiacheng, “Shixi” 世系 43a. 48 Fu Qi 傅期, “Yangshan zupu xu” 陽山族譜序,inNan’an Fushi zupu, “Xu” 序, 3a. 49 Xu Duo 徐鐸, “Xushi Song chongxiu pu xu” 徐氏宋重修譜序,inYanshou Xushi zupu, “Jiu xu” 舊序,3a–4b. 50 Lin Ying 林英, untitled 1088 preface, in Xihe Linshi zupu,6a–6b. 51 Chen (1996), especially 4–6. 52 Han Qi 韓琪, “Hanshi jiaji xu” 韓氏家集序, QSW 20:853.332–33. 53 Yu Jing 余靖, “Xiapei Yushi shipu xu” 下邳余氏氏譜序, QSW 14:567.25–26. 54 Xu Yuan 許元, “Xushi shici tu xu” 許氏世次圖序, QSW 10:392.89–90.

Chapter 6 1 Originally published as Clark (2020), 1–17, with editorial modification. 2 I have opted to use the term “holistic” advisedly to address those eras when the empire embraced the three main west-east river basins: Yellow, Yangtze, and West, a status that was first achieved by the Qin empire late in the third century BCE. In fact the idea of “holistic” empire is at least as ancient as the Qin and was main- tained by all Chinese dynasties regardless of their physical size; there was only one huangdi. See Pines (2012), especially Chapter One, “The Ideal of ‘Great Unity.’” Chinese historiography, however, has long assumed that once the Qin had incor- porated the Yangzi basin and lands to the farther south these were intrinsically part of the empire, and that is what I mean by the term. For an alternative definition of holism, see Nicholas Tackett’s discussion of the “circumscribed square” outlined in the Book of Documents, in Tackett (2018) and the prior comments in Tackett (2017) 150–151. 3 ZZTJ 263:8573 and following passages. 4 ZZTJ 272:8880. Notably, after consolidating power as (Later) Tang Zhuangzong, Li Cunxu denied the privileges of co-equal rule that Qian Liu had adopted and told him to get back in line; see ZZTJ 273:8926. 5 See, for example, ZZTJ 266:8675, 266:8676 6 The breakdown of (Later) Tang control of Sichuan is traced through ZZTJ j. 277– 278 and XWDS j. 64. On Meng’s adoption of the imperial title, see ZZTJ 278:9102. 7 ZZTJ 9103. 8 There are conflicting narratives behind this claim, although all trace back to Xianzong. For a summary, see https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/李昪 (accessed September 3, 2018). 9 Clark, (2009), 167. 10 A parallel observation is made by Johannes Kurz; see Kurz (2011), and more recently in Kurz (2016), especially pages 24–25 where he reviews recent Chinese scholarship on the issue. For a different and less sweeping assessment, see the arguments in Li (2018). Drawing on a close analysis of the anonymously compiled Diaoji litan 釣磯立談, Li describes (Jiangnan) Tang as a “peripheral hegemonic state,” or pian ba, a term with an extensive history going back at least to the Lüshi chunqiu that is traditionally dated to 239 BCE, and develops a theory of a “limited ” to describe the claims of Li Bian and his successors. Although Li Bian’s claim to the Mandate was never recognized either by his con- temporary world or later history, in light of the comments of Xu Xuan, Han Xizai, and Wei Cen cited in text below I believe Li Cho-ying underestimates the sig- nificance of what he did. 11 Kurz (1997), 31. 12 See Clark (2009), 163–171. 13 Quoted in NanTang shu, 4:6b. The most thorough discussion of Tang guo plans to conquer the north is Kurz (2016). 14 ZZTJ 186:9338. 15 ZZTJ 290:9466–67. 16 ZZTJ 292:9524. 17 ZZTJ 292:9525–27. Wang Pu’s proposal to attack the south has been translated by Lorge (2013), 111–112. Lorge further discussed the debate in the Zhou court that produced Wang Pu’s proposal in Lorge (2015), Chapter 3, “The pivot of the tenth century” (accessed on Google Books, January 8, 2019; no pagination). 18 The (Later) Zhou and Song campaigns have been summarized several times in English. See Worthy (1976), Standen (2009), and Kurz (2011). 19 Kurz (1997), 36, citing the biography of Han Xizai in Lu You, 12:49. Without explicitly contradicting Kurz, Lorge has taken a slightly different approach, focus- ing on debates within the Zhou court over a northern versus southern strategy; see Lorge (2015), Chapter 3. 20 This is a central theme of Clark (1991). For an outstanding overview of some of the most notable features of the Song, see Hymes and Schirokauer (1993), and Hymes (2015).

Chapter 7 1 Originally published as Clark (2020), 17–43, with editorial modification 2 On the networks of the founders of the southern guo, see Clark (2011). See also the more focused discussion of the “men of Gushi” in Clark (2007), 47–54. 3 See, for example, the discussion in Zhang (2016), 175–217, which focuses especially on Xu Xuan, to whom our discussion will return below. 4 Zhao Yanwei, j.10, #45. 5 SS 282:9548. It bears noting that Wang Dan and Wang Qinrou were politically opposed to each other, predisposing Dan to object to this nomination. On their opposition, see Lau and Huang (2009), 274–277. 6 This is a point that has been recognized by many, but perhaps the most systematic examination is Chen (1977), a prosopographic survey of the political elite through the Northern Song dynasty (960–1126). 7 Wu Zimu, juan 17, “zhuangyuan biao” 狀元表. 8 Chen (1977), especially 64–87. 9 See Clark (2016), Chapter 4, “Social Innovation in the Eleventh Century and the Debates on Civilization.” 10 The most authoritative discussion of wen in English is Bol (1992). Even if I emphasize a narrow aspect of the term, my debt to this outstanding work is profound. 11 For useful discussion of the meaning of li and its link to civilization, see Holcombe (2001), 41–44. 12 SGCQ 11:152–153. The phrase xue bowu can mean either “to study random things” or “to study the natural world.” Neither is entirely consistent with wen. 13 Ouyang Xiu, Wenzhong ji, 143:13a–13b. 14 See his official biography in SS 441:13044–49. Bol (1992), 156, identifies Xu as “the greatest Five Dynasties scholar to find a place at the Song court.” 15 Xu Xuan, “Gu Bingbu shilang Wang gong ji xu” 故兵部侍郎王公集序, QSW 22:196, borrowing from Bol (1992), 157, with adaptation. 16 “Chuchu lun” 出處論 (QSW 23:207); see also “Junchen lun” 君臣論 (QSW 23:209–210), “Chichuan lun” 持權論 (QSW 23:210–212), and “Shichen lun” 師臣 論 (QSW 23:212–213), all of which affirm the importance of hierarchy. 17 SS 293:6639. 18 Tian Xi, Xianping ji, 2:1a-1b. 19 See You (2004), 261–266. 20 The compound junguo is a standard term for “the empire.” In this case, however, I believe that Tian intends the two terms to be read distinctly, thus my translation. 21 Xianping ji, 2:9b, adapted and expanded from Bol (1992), 148. 22 See, for example, Ebrey (1991). 23 Xianping ji, 2:9b. 24 Ouyang Xiu, Guitian lu, b:22a, translated in Ebrey (1989), 284, with alterations. 25 XTS 11:307–09, from Bol (1992), 193, with adaptation. 26 Ouyang Xiu, Wenzhong ji, 17:2b. 27 Xia Song, “Jin yin si” 禁淫祀,Wenzhuang ji, 13:15a. The term si 祀, which alludes to “religious” rites, loosely defined, stands in contrast to li 禮, which are “civil” rites, again loosely defined. There is much overlap between the two, but li, as the performative side of wen, cannot be “illicit.” 28 “Guangwen song” 廣文頌, Wenzhuang ji 24:3b-4a. 29 “Li lun di yi” 禮論第一, Xujiang ji 2:1b. 30 “Li lun di wu” 禮論第五, Xujiang ji 2:12b. 31 “Li lun di wu” 禮論第五, Xujiang ji 2:11b–12a. 32 Xujiang ji 6: 17a. 33 “Jianchang jun zhijun ting ji” 建昌軍知軍廳記, Xujiang ji 23:2b–3b. 34 “Jianchang zhijun ting ji,” 建昌知軍㕔記, Xujiang ji 23:2b–3a. 35 “Jianchang jun yimen ji” 建昌軍義門記, Xujiang ji 23:3b–4b. 36 Yu Jing, “Xunzhou xincheng zhouxue ji,” ji, 6:1a-2b, reproduced in QSW 569:53–54; “Hongzhou xinzhi zhouxue ji,” Wuxi ji 6:2b-4b, reproduced in QSW 569: 54–55; “Raozhou xinjian zhouxue ji,” Wuxi ji 6:5a-6b, reproduced in QSW 569: 55– 56; and “Leizhou xinxiu junxue ji,” Wuxi ji 6:6b-7b, reproduced in QSW 569:57. 37 See Clark (2009), Appendix 1, “Examination Numbers, and Xianyou Dis- tricts, 980–1274.” In the next official examination cycle in 1034 there were 24 suc- cessful jinshi candidates from Putian. 38 Ouyang Xiu, Wenzhong ji 35:2b-7b. 39 Cai discussed this in many places, but see especially “Qi jianfang ZhangQuan zhou Xinghua jun renhu shending mi zhazi,” Duanming ji, 26:5a–6a. 40 “Song Ma Chengzhi tongpan Yizhou xu,” Duanming ji 29:6b–7b. Ma Chengzhi appears in the work of several other Northern Song scholars who were linked to Fan Zhongyan (see, for example, Su Shunqin, “He Ma Chengzhi gumiao,” Su xueshi ji 6:4a), there is no further identification. 41 “Guolun yaomu” 國論要目#1, “Ming li” 明禮, Duanming ji 22:1a-2. 42 This theme is echoed in several texts, but see for example “Chen diancheng songxing shixu” 陳殿丞送刑詩序, Duanming ji 29: 13b-14b. 43 See, for example, the sequence of prayers entitled “Jishen wen” 祭神文, Duanming ji 36:14a-17a and “Wan’an du shiqiao ji” 萬安渡石橋記, Duanming ji 28:21b-22a. 44 “Sheng huifang houxu” 聖惠方後序, Duanming ji 29:14b-16a. 45 Ouyang Xiu, “Caigong muzhiming” 蔡公墓誌銘, Wenzhong ji 35:4b-5a. 46 Duanming ji, 29: 9a. 47 See Tackett (2017), for which this is the central theme; see also Yang (2019).

Chapter 8 1 Although this is not the place to argue this point fully, there is a tension between how we understand the term “China” today, as both a cultural and geopolitical reference, and what it might mean when applied to the long ago. Because at the core of my approach is the idea that geopolitical “China” wasn’t fully affirmed until the Song dynasty, as I have explained in Chapter 5, I find the term anachronistic when applied to earlier times. 2 NanTang shu, 1:3a. 3 This process was explored several decades ago by Denis Twitchett in work that has yet to be replaced. Though much of his work is related to the issue, see especially his magisterial Financial Administration Under the T’ang Dynasty (Twitchett, 1970) and “The T’ang Market System” (Twitchett, 1966) More recent work English-lan- guage that has built from Twitchett’s insights include Clark (1991) and Marmé (2005). There is an extensive literature in Chinese and Japanese, but note especially the relevant passages in Shiba (1968 and 1988). 4 I have discussed much of this in Clark (2009), but see also Hino (1941 and 1941– 1942). 5 For a recent and provocative analysis, see Liu (2015). See also McDermott and Shiba (2015). 6 The Song examinations he been the subject of numerous studies in a range of languages, but among the most accessible is John Chaffee, The Thorny Gates of Learning in Sung China: A Social History of Examinations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 7 The term “newly-risen” (xin xing [pronounced shinko- in Japanese]) was introduced by Aoyama (1962). 8 See, for example, Ebrey (1991). 9 Miyakawa (1960) and Tackett (2014), passim. See also the relevant if indirect dis- cussion in Holcombe (2001), Chapter 3, “Civilizing Mission: Conceiving East Asia,” 30–77. 10 “Lizhou fu Dayun si ji”柳州復大雲寺記, Liu hedong ji 28:465–466. 11 Quoted in Charbonneau (2008), 32. 12 Holcombe (2001), Chapter 3, “Civilizing Mission: Conceiving East Asia,” 30–77. Shao-yun Yang (2019) has challenged the culturalist definition of Sinitic identity 13 See the discussion in Clark (2016), especially Part Two, “A Local Model of Cultural Accommodation.” 14 On the tension between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, see Kojima (1991). See also von Glahn (2004). 15 In a recent essay that offers a distinct yet complementary perspective, Ng Pak- sheung has argued that the northern scholars of the early Song were hostile to southern scholarship, specifically that of Jiangnan Tang; see Ng (2020). 16 See Smith (2009), 20–24. 17 See McGrath (2009) and Levine (2009). 18 Although there were several attempts to forge a reunified empire in the fourth century, thereafter the southern empires were embroiled in domestic conflicts that deflected any further reunification attempts; see Lewis (2009), 62–73. 19 See Tao (2009), Gong (2009), and Davis (2009). Bibliography

Abbreviations (full citations under “sources”) BMTZ Huang Zhongzhao, BaMin tongzhi ESKQS Wenyuange Siku quanshu文淵閣四庫全書 electronic edition. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1999 HJAS Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies JSYS Journal of Song-Yuan Studies JWDS Xue Juzheng, Jiu Wudai shi MS He Qiaoyuan, Minshu QSW Quan Songwen SGCQ Wu Renchen, Shiguo chunqiu SS Tuo Tuo, Song shi TPHYJ Yue Shi, Taiping huanyu ji XTS Ouyang Xiu, Xin Tangshu XWDS Ouyang Xiu. Xin wudai shi ZZTJ .

Primary Sources al-S-ıra-f-ı, Abu Zayd Hasan (2017). Accounts of China and India, translated by Tim Mackintosh-Smith. New York: New York University Press. Anon. Wuguo gushi 五國故事. Zhibuzuzhai congshu 知不足齋叢書 edition. Anon. Yantie lun 鹽鐡論 (ESKQS edition). BaMin tongzhi 八閩通志. Compiled by Huang Zhongzhao 黃仲昭 et al. : Fujian renmin chubanshe, 1991 punctuated edition. Cai Xiang 蔡襄. Duanming ji 端明集 (ESKQS edition). Chenshu 陳書. Compiled by Yao Silian 姚思廉 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1972 punctuated edition. Ding, Hesheng 丁荷生 (Kenneth Dean) and Zheng, Zhenman 鄭振滿, eds. (1996). Fujian zongjiao beiming huibian: Xinghua fu fence 福建宗教碑銘彙編: 興化府分冊. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe. Fan, Jiong 范埛 and Lin Yu 林禹. WuYue beishi 吳越備史 (ESKQS edition). Fan, Zhongyan 范仲淹. Fan wenzheng gong zouyi 范文正公奏議 (ESKQS edition). (Qianlong) Fujian tongzhi (乾隆)福建通志. Compiled by Lu Chao 盧焯, et al. (ESKQS edition). (Yongzheng) Guangdong tongzhi (雍正) 廣東通志. Compiled by Tang Yulin 郝玉麟, et al. (ESKQS edition). Gujin tushu jicheng 古今圖書集成. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1934. Han shu 漢書. Compiled by Ban Gu 班固. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1965 punctuated edition. Han Yu 韓愈. Wubaijia zhu Changli wenji 五百家注昌黎文集 (ESKQS edition). He Guangyuan 何光遠. Jianjie lu 鑑戒錄. Zhibuzuzhai congshu edition. Huang Tao黃滔. Puyang Huang yushi ji 莆陽黃御史集. Congshu jicheng reprint of Tianrang ge congshu 天壤閣叢書 1884 edition. Jinshu 晉書. Compiled by Fang Xuanlin 房玄齡. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Jiu Wudai shi 舊五代史. Compuled by Xue Juzheng 薛居正 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976 punctuated edition. Li Gou 李覯, Xujiang ji 旴江集 (ESKQS edition). Liang shu 梁書. Compiled by Yao Silian 姚思廉 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973 punctuated edition. Liao shi 遼史. Compiled by Tuotuo 脫脫 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974 punctuated edition. Liu Kezhuang 劉克莊. Houcun xiansheng daquanji 后村先生大全集 (Sibu congkan edition). Liu, Zongyuan 柳宗元. Liu hedong ji 柳河東集. : Renmin chubanshe, 1974 punctuated edition. Lu, You 陸游. (Lushi) NanTang shu (陸氏) 南唐書. Beijing: Zhongguo shudian, 1986 edition. Mengzi 孟子 accessed at https://ctext.org/mengzi (June 1, 2019). Mi Fu 米黻. Hua shi 畫史 (ESKQS edition). Ming jili 明集禮. Compiled by Xu Yikui 徐一夔 (ESKQS edition). Minshu 閩書. Compiled by He Qiaoyuan 何喬遠 et al. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 1995 punctuated edition. Nan’an Fushi zupu 南安傅氏族譜, 1929 edition. Compiled by Fu Weiqing 傅維情 et al. Collection of the Xianyou District Library. NanTang shu 南唐書. Compiled by Ma Ling 馬令. Sibu congkan edition. Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修. Guitian lu 歸田錄 (SKQS edition). Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修. Wenzhong ji 文忠集 (ESKQS edition). Puyang Yuhu Chenshi jiacheng 莆陽玉湖陳氏家乘, 1936 edition. Compiled by Chen Qinti 陳琴題 et al. Collection of the Library of Fujian shifan daxue. Quan Songwen. 全宋文. Shanghai and : Shanghai cishu 上海辭書 and Anhui jiaoyu 安徽教育 2006 joint edition. Qutan Xida 瞿曇悉達. DaTang Kaiyuan zhanjing 大唐開元占經. Accessed at https:// ctext.org (September 30, 2020). (Chunxi) Sanshan zhi (淳熙) 三山志. Compiled by Liang Kejia 梁克家 et al. Beijing: SongYuan fangzhi congkan 宋元方志叢刊 1990 reissue of 1638 edition based on 1182 edition. Shang shu 尚書. Accessed at https://ctext.org/shang-shu/great-plan/zh (May 28, 2019). Shi Jiao 尸佼, Shizi xiaozheng 尸子校正. Accessed at https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=gb& chapter=525945&remap=gb (June 1, 2019). Shi jing 詩經. Accessed at https://ctext.org/book-of-poetry/sacrificial-odes-of-shang (May 30, 2019). Sima Guang 司馬光. Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑. Taibei: Hongshi chubanshe, 1985 punctuated edition. Sima Qian 司馬遷. Shi ji 史記 (ESKQS edition). Song huiyao jiben 宋會要輯本. Taibei: Shijie shuju1963 photoreprint of compilation of Xu Song 徐松 [1781–1848], published by the Beiping (Beijing) Library, 1936. Songshi 宋史. Compiled by Tuotuo 脫脫 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977 punctuated edition. Songshu 宋書. Compiled by Shen Yue 沈約. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Su Shunqin 蘇舜欽, Su xueshi ji 蘇學士集 (ESKQS edition). Suishu 隋書. Compiled by Wei Zheng 魏徵 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973 punctuated edition. Taiping guangji 太平廣記. Edited by Li Fang 李放 (ESKQS edition). Tian Xi 田錫, Xianping ji 咸平集 (ESKQS edition). Tongdian 通典. Compiled by Du You 杜佑 (ESKQS edition). Wu, Renchen 吳仁臣 (1983). Shiguo chunqiu 十國春秋. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, punctuated edition. Wujun zhi 吳郡志. Compiled by Fan Chengda 范成大 et al. Beijing: SongYuan fangzhi congkan 宋元方志叢刊 1990 reissue of 1926 photoreprint of 1229 reissue of 1192 edition. Wujun tujing xuji 吳郡圖經續集. Compiled by Zhu Changwen 朱長文 et al. Beijing: SongYuan fangzhi congkan 宋元方志叢刊 1990 reissue of 1924 photoreprint of 1084 edition. Wu Zimu 吳自牧. Mengliang lu 夢粱錄. Accessed at https://ctext.org (June 14, 2018). Xia Song 夏竦, Wenzhuang ji 文莊集 (ESKQS edition). Xihe Linshi zupu 西河林氏族譜, 1883 edition. Compiled by Lin Jieyun 林捷云 et al. Collection of the Library of Fujian shifan daxue. Xin Tangshu 新唐書. Compiled by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. Xin wudai shi 新五代史. Compiled by Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 et al. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974 punctuated edition. Xunzi 荀子. Accessed at https://ctext.org/xunzi (June 3, 2019). Yang Xuanzhi 楊衒之. Luoyang jialan ji 洛陽伽蘭記. Accessed at http://www.guoxue. com (September 14, 2017). Yanshou Xushi zupu 延壽徐氏族譜, 1761 edition. Compiled by Xu Jian 徐監 et al. Collection of the Library of Fujian shifan daxue. Yongchun zhou zhi 永春州志. Compiled by Du Changding 杜昌丁, et al. Taibei: Yongchun wenxi she 永春文戲社, 1972 photoreprint of 1787 edition. Yu Jing 余靖, Wuxi ji 武溪集 (ESKQS edition). (Yuding) QuanTang shi (御定) 全唐詩 (ESKQS edition). Yue Shi 樂史. Taiping huanyu ji 太平寰宇記. Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1962 reprint of 1803 edition. Zhao Yanwei 趙彥衛, Yunlu manchao 雲麓漫鈔. Accessed at https://ctext.org (June 13, 2018). (Qianlong) Zhejiang tongzhi (乾隆) 浙江通志. Compiled by Ji Zengyun 嵇曾筠 et al, (ESKQS edition). Zheng Qiao 鄭樵. Tongzhi 通志. Taipei: Xinxing shuju, 1965 reprint of 1935–1937 Shi tong 十通 edition. (Nanhu) Zhengshi dazongpu 南湖鄭氏大宗普. Compiled by Zheng Shimin 鄭時敏 et al. Undated Qing edition, collection of the Library of Fujian shifan daxue 福建師 範大學. Zhou li 周禮. Accessed at https://ctext.org/rites-of-zhou/tian-guan-zhong-zai (May 31, 2019). Zhou yi 周易. Accessed at https://ctext.org/book-of-changes/shi (December 1, 2019). Zuo Zhuan 左轉. Accessed at https://ctext.org/chun-qiu-zuo-zhuan/xi-gong (June 10, 2019).

Secondary Sources Amano, Motonosuke 天皇元之助 (1962). Chu-goku no-gyo-shi kenkyu- 中國農業史研究. Tokyo: Ochanomizu shobo. Aoyama, Sadao (1962). “The Newly-risen Bureaucrats in Fukien at the Five Dynasty- Sung Period, with Special Reference to Their Genealogies,” Memoirs of the Research Department of the To-yo- Bunko 21, 1–48. Bol, Peter K. (1992). This Culture of Ours: Intellectual Transitions in T’ang and Sung China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bray, Francesca (1984). “Agriculture,” in Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China, vol. VI, Part 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bray, Francesca (1986). The Rice Economies: Technology and Development in Asian Societies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bryant, Daniel (1982). Lyric Poets of the Southern T’ang: Feng Yen-ssu, 903–960, and Li Yu, 937–978. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Chaffee, John. (1985) The Thorny Gates of Learning in Sung China: A Social History of Examinations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chang, Sen-dou (1961). “Some Aspects of the Urban Geography of the Chinese Hsien Capital,” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 51:1, 23–45. Charbonneau, Bruno (2008). France and the New Imperialism. London: Ashgate. Chen, Yiyan 陳義彥 (1977). BeiSong tongzhi jieceng shehui liudong zhi yanjiu 北宋統 治階層社會流動之研究. Taipei: Jiaxin shuini gongsi. Chen, Zhiping 陳支平 (1996). Fujian zupu 福建族譜. Fuzhou: Fuzhou renmin chubanshe. Chikusa, Masa’aki 竺沙雅章 (1982). Chu-goku bukkyo- shakaishi kenkyu- 中國仏教社會 史研. Kyoto: Do-sho-sha. Clark, Hugh R. (1982). “Quanzhou (Fujian) in the Tang-Song Interregnum, 879– 978,” T’oung-pao LXVIII, 1–3, 132–149. Clark, Hugh R. (1990). “Bridles, Halters, and Hybrids: A Case Study in Tang Fron- tier Policy,” T’ang Studies #6, 49–68. Clark, Hugh R. (1991). Community, Trade, and Neworks: Southern Fujian Province from the Third to the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Hugh R. (1992). “Rural Tax Stations in the Late T’ang and Ten Kingdoms,” Asia Major (3rd series) V:1, 57–83. Clark, Hugh R. (1995). “The Fu of Minnan: A Local Clan in the Late Tang and Song (9th–13th Centuries),” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38. 1, 1–74. Clark, Hugh R. (2007). Portrait of a Community: Society, Culture, and the Structures of Kinship in the Mulan River Valley (Fujian) from the Late Tang through the Song. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Clark, Hugh R. (2009). “The Southern Kingdoms between the T’ang and the Sung, 907–979,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and Its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 133–205. Clark, Hugh R. (2011). “Scoundrels, Rogues, and Refugees: The Founders of the 10 Kingdoms in the late Ninth Century.” In The Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, edited by Peter Lorge. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 47–78. Clark, Hugh R. (2012). “Studies of South China’s Tenth Century Interregnum. Comments on Johannes L. Kurz. China’s Dynasty, 937–976 and Hongjie Wang. Power and Politics in Tenth-Century China: The Regime,” JSYS, #42, 449–463. Clark, Hugh R. (2016). The Sinitic Encounter in Southeast China through the First Millennium CE. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Clark, Hugh R. (2016b). “Why does the Tang-Song Interregnum Matter?: A Focus on the Economies of the South,” JSYS 46, 1–28. Clark, Hugh R. (2017). “Why does the Tang-Song Interregnum Matter?: Part Two: The Social and Cultural Initiatives of the South,” JSYS 47, 1–32. Clark, Hugh R. (2018). “What’s the Matter with ‘China’? A Critique of Teleological History,” Journal of Asian Studies 77:2, 295–314. Clark, Hugh R. (2020). “Why does the Tang-Song Interregnum Matter? Part Three: The Legacy of Division and the Holistic Empire,” JSYS 49, 1–24. Davis, Richard L. (2009). “The Reigns of Kuang-tsung and Ning-tsung” and “The Reign of Li-tsung,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and Its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 756–912. Du, Wenyu 度文玉 (2001). Nan Tang shilüe 南唐史略. Xian: Shanxi renmin jiaoyu chubanshe. Eberhard, Wolfram (1968). The Local Cultures of South and East China. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1989). “Education Through Ritual: Efforts to Formulate Family Rituals During the Sung Period,” in Neo-Confucian Education: The For- mative State, edited by Wm. Theodore de Bary and John Chaffee. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 277–306. Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1991). Confucianism and Family Rituals in Imperial China: A Social History of Writing About Rites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Elvin, Mark (1973). Pattern of the Chinese Past. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Flecker, Michael (2000). “A 9th-century Arab or Indian shipwreck in Indonesian waters,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 29:2, 199–217. Flecker, Michael (2005). “Treasure from the Java Sea (the tenth Century Intan Shipwreck),” Heritage Asia 2:2 (http://www.maritime-explorations.com/Intan.pdf, accessed January 15, 2017). Gong, Ai-wei (2009). “The Reign of Hsiao-tsung,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 710–755. Grafflin, Dennis (1981). “The Great Family in Medieval South China,” HJAS 41. 1 (June), 65–74. Guy, John (2010). “Rare and Strange Goods: International Trade in Ninth-Century Asia,” in Shipwrecked: Tang Treasures and Monsoon Winds, edited by Regina Krahlet al. Washington, DC: Arthur Sackler Gallery, 19–27. Hartwell, Robert M. (1982). “Demographic, Political, and Social Transformations of China, 750–1550,” HJAS 42:2, 365–442. Hearn, Maxwell K. and Wen Fong (1999), Along the Riverbank: Chinese Painting from the C.C. Wang Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Heng, Derek (2014). “The Tang Shipwreck and the Nature of China’s Maritime Trade During the Late Tang Period,” unpublished paper presented to the symposium “The Belitung Shipwreck and the Maritime Silk Route,” held at the Aga Khan Museum (Toronto), February 28, 2014. Hino, Kaisaburo- 日野開三郎 (1941). “Godai namboku Shina rikujo- ko-tsu-ro nit suite” 五代南北支那陸上交通路について, Rekishigaku kenkyu- 歷史學研究 11:6, 372–402. Hino, Kaisaburo- 日野開三郎 (1941–1942). “Godai Binkoku no taichu-gen cho-ko- to bo-eki” 五代閩國の對中原朝貢と貿易, Shi’en 史淵 26 (1941), 1–50 and 27 (1942), 1–41. Ho, Ping-ti (1956). “Early Ripening Rice in Chinese History,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 9:2, 200–218. Holcombe, Charles (2001). The Genesis of East Asia, 221 B.C.–A.D. 907. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press and the Association of Asian Studies. Hucker, Charles (1985). A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hymes, Robert (2015). “Song Society and Social Change,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part Two: Sung China, 907–1279, edited by John W. Chaffee and Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 526–664. Hymes, Robert and Conrad Schirokauer (1993). “Introduction,” in Ordering the World: Approaches to State and Society in Sung Dynasty China,editedbyRobertP.Hymesand Conrad Schirokauer. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1–58. Jiang, Jian’guang 张剑光 and Zou Guowei 邹国慰 (2010). “Tang Wudai shiqi Jiang- nan nongye shengchan shangpinhua ji qi yinxiang” 唐五代时期江南农业生产商品 化及其影响, Xueshu yuegan 学术月刊 2 (no pagination). Jiao, Tianlong (2007). The Neolithic of Southeast China: Cultural Transformation and Regional Interaction on the Coast. Youngstown, NY: Cambria Press. Johnson, David (1977). The Medieval Chinese Oligarchy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Johnson, David (1977b). “The Last Years of a Great Clan: The Li Family of Chao- chün in Late T’ang and Early Sung,” HJAS 37:1, 5–102. Ko, Dorothy Ko (2005). Cinderella’s Sisters: A Revisionist History of Footbinding. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kojima, Tsuyoshi 小嶋毅 (1991). “Seishi to inshi: Fukken no chihôshi ni okeru kijutsu to ronri” 正祠と淫祠福建の地方志における記述と論理. To-yo- bunka ken- kyu-jo- kiyo- 東洋文庫研究所紀要 114, 87–203. Kurz, Johannes L. J. (1997). “The Yangzi in the Negotiations between Southern Tang and its Northern Neighbors (Mid-Tenth Century),” in China and Her Neighbors: Borders, Visions of the Other, Foreign Policy tenth to nineteenth Century, edited by Sabine Dabringhaus and Roderich Ptak. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlang, 29–48. Kurz, Johannes L. J. (2003). “A Survey of the Historical Sources for the Five Dynasties and Ten States in Song Times” in JSYS 33, 187–224. Kurz, Johannes L. J. (2011). China’s Southern Tang Dynasty, 937–976. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. Kurz, Johannes L. J. (2016). “On the Unification Plans of the Southern Tang Dynasty,” Journal of Asian History, 50:1, 23–45. Lattimore, Owen (1940). Inner Asian Frontiers of China. New York: American Geo- graphical Society. Lau, Nap-yin and Huang K’uan-chung (2009). “Founding and Consolidation of the Sung Dynasty,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 206–278. Lee, De-nin D. (2010). The Night Banquet: A Chinese Scroll through Time. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Levine, Ari David (2009). “Che-tsung’s Reign and the Age of Faction,” in The Cam- bridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Pre- cursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 448–555. Lewis, Mark Edward (2009). China Between Empires: The Northern and Southern Dynasties. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Lewis, Mark Edward (2009b), China’s Cosmopolitan Empire: The Tang Dynasty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Li, Cho-ying (2018). “A Failed Peripheral Hegemonic State with a Limited Mandate of Heaven: Politico-Historical Reflections of a Survivor of the Southern Tang,” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series48:2, 243–285. Liu, William Guanglin (2015). The Chinese Market Economy: 1000–1500. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Lorge, Peter (2013). Debating War in Chinese History. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Lorge, Peter (2015). The Reunification of China: Peace through War under the Song Dynasty. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marmé, Michael (2005). : Where the Goods of All the Provinces Converge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. McDermott, Joseph P. and Shiba Yoshinobu (2015). “Economic Change in China, 960–1279,” in Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part Two: “Sung China, 960– 1279”, edited by John W. Chaffee and Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 321–426. McGrath, Michael (2009). “The Reigns of Jen-tsung and Ying-tsung,” in The Cam- bridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Pre- cursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 279–346. Miyakawa, Hisayuki (1960). “The Confucianization of South China,” in The Con- fucian Persuasion, edited by Arthur Wright. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 21–46. Morohashi, Tetsuji 諸橋哲治, et al. (1957–1960). Daikanwa jiten 大漢和辞典. Tokyo: Taishu-gen shoten. Ng, Pak-sheung (2020). “Cultural Interactions and Competitions: The Case of the Song Dynasty (960–1279) and the Southern Tang (937–965).” Raozong yiguo xueyuan yuangan 饒宗頤國學院院刊 7, 255–319. Ouyang, Xiu (2004). Historical Records of the Five Dynasties, translated by Richard Davis. New York: Columbia University Press. Oxford English Dictionary Online (2020). Oxford University Press, accessed at https:// spectacled.ursinus.edu:2447/, on May 10, 2020. Paul, Diana (1984). Philosophy of Mind in Sixth-Century China: Parama-tha’s “Evolution of Consciousness”, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Peterson, C.A. (1979). “Court and Province in mid- and late T’ang,” in The Cam- bridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 464–537. Pines, Yuri (2012). The Everlasting Empire: The Political Culture of Ancient China and its Imperial Legacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pomeranz, Kenneth (2000). The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rawski, Evelyn S. (2015). Early Modern China and Northeast Asia: Cross-Border Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ren, Shuang 任爽 (1995). Nan Tang shi 南唐史. Changchun: Dongbei shifan daxue chubanshe. Robinet, Isabelle (1977). Taoism: Growth of a Religion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schafer, Edward H. (1967). The Vermilion Bird. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Shiba, Yoshinobu 斯波義信 (1968), So-dai sho-gyo-shi kenkyu- 宋代商業史研究. Tokyo: Kazama shobo. Shiba, Yoshinobu 斯波義信 (1988). So-dai Ko-nan keizaishi no kenkyu- 宋代江南経済史 の研究. Tokyo: To-yo- bunka. Smith, Judith G. and Wen C. Fong, eds. (1999). Issues of Authenticity in Chinese Painting. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Smith, Paul Jakov (2009). “Introduction: The Song Dynasty and its Predecessors,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1–37. Somers, Robert (1979). “The End of the T’ang,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 682–789. Standen, Naomi (2007). Unbounded Loyalty: Frontier Crossing in Liao China. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Standen, Naomi (2009). “The Five Dynasties,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 38–132. Strickmann, Michel (1977), “The Mao Shan Revelations: Taoism and the Aristocracy.” T’oung-pao, 2nd series, 63:1, 1–64. Tackett, Nicholas (2014). The Destruction of the Medieval Chinese Oligarchy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University East Asia Center. Tackett, Nicholas (2017), The Origins of the Chinese Nation: Song China and the Forging of an East Asian World Order. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tackett, Nicholas (2018). “Imperial Elites, Bureaucracy, and the Transformation of the Geography of Power in Tang-Song China,” in Die Interaktion von Herrschern und Eliten in imperialen Ordnungen des Mittelalters, edited by Wolfram Drews. Berlin: De Gruyter, 170–190. Tao, Jing-shen (2009). “The Move to the South and the Reign of Kao-tsung” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”, edited by Denis Twitchett and Paul Jakov Smith. Cam- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 644–709. Twitchett, Denis (1966). “The T’ang Market System,” Asia Major NS 12:2, 202–226. Twitchett, Denis (1970). Financial Administration Under the T’ang Dynasty, 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Twitchett, Denis (1979). “Introduction,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1–47. Twitchett, Denis (1979b), “Hsuan-tsung (reign 712–56),” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 333–463. Twitchett, Denis and Paul Jakov Smith, editors (2009). Cambridge History of China, volume 5, Part One: “The Sung Dynasty and its Precursors, 907–1279”. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Twitchett, Denis and Janice Stargardt (2002), “Chinese Silver Bullion in a Tenth- Century Indonesian Wreck,” Asia Major, 3rd series, XV:1, 23–72. Twitchett, Denis and Howard J. Wechsler (1979). “Kao-tsung (reign 649–83), and the empress Wu: the inheritor and the usurper,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 242–289. von Glahn, Richard (2004). The Sinister Way: The Divine and the Demonic in Chinese Religious Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Wang, Gungwu (1958). “The Nanhai Trade: A Study of the Early History of Chinese Trade in the South China Sea,” Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society xxxi:2(182), 3–135. Wang, Gungwu (1963). Structure of Power in North China during the Five Dynasties. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Wang, Gungwu (2007). Divided China: Preparing for Reunification, 883–947. Singapore: World Scientific. Wang, Hongjie (2011). Power and Politics in Tenth-Century China: The Former Shu Regime. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press. Wang, Xinxi 王心喜 (2004). “Lun Wudai WuYue guo yu Riben de jiaowang” 論五代 吳越囯與日本的交往, Haijiao shi yanjiu 海交史研究 1, 29–38. Wechsler, Howard J. (1979). “T’ai-tsung (reign 629–49) the consolidator,” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 188–243. Worthy, Edmund H., Jr. (1976). “The Founding of the Song Dynasty, 950–1000.” Princeton University unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Wright, Arthur (1979). “The Sui Dynasty (581–616),” in The Cambridge History of China, volume 3, “Sui and T’ang China, 589–906, Part 1”, edited by Denis Twitchett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Xu, Xiaowang 徐曉望 (2006). Fujian tongshi 福建通史, vol. 2, “Sui Tang Wudai” 隋 唐五代. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe. Yang, Shao-yun (2019). The Way of the Barbarians: Redrawing Ethnic Boundaries in Tang and Song China. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Yang, Weili 楊偉立 (1986). Qian Shu Hou Shu shi 前蜀後蜀史. Chengdu: Sichuan sheng shehui kexueyuan chubanshe. You, Ziyong 淤自勇 (2004). “Han Tang shiqi ‘xiangyin jiu’ lizhi hua kaolun” 漢唐時 期鄉飲酒禮制化考倫, Hanxue yanjiu 漢學研究 22:2, 261–266. Zhang, Weiling (Chang Wei-ling) 張維玲 (2016). “Song chu nanbei wenshi de hudong yu nanfang wenshi de jueqi—jujiao yu Xu Xuan ji qi houxue de kaocha” 宋初南北 文士的互動與南方文士的崛起—聚焦於徐鉉及其後學的考察, Taida wenshi zhexue bao 臺 大 文 史 哲 學 報, #85, 175–217. Zheng, Xuemeng 郑学檬 (1991). Wudai shiguo shi yanjiu 五代十国史研究. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Zhu, Jiang 朱江 (1992). “Yangzhou yu ‘haishang sichou zhi lu” 揚州與海上絲綢之路, Jiangsu shangzhuan xuebao 江蘇商專學報,2,18–23. Zhu, Weigan 朱維幹 (1984). Fujian shigao 福建史稿. Fuzhou: Fujian jiaoyu.