[Dissertation] Tang Taizong's Playbook: Jin Shu and How to Use Standard Histories

Author:
Kobzeva, Maria. 

School:
The University of Wisconsin - Madison 

Year:

2019

Abstract:

The dissertation explores what the content and structure of the Jin shu 晉書 (History of Western and Eastern Jin Dynasties, 265–420) compilation revealed about political choices and self-representation of Tang Taizong (r. 626–649), the second emperor of the Tang dynasty (618–907). Emperor Taizong, himself of non-Chinese origins, was concerned with the question of legitimacy and future of his rule. By scrutinizing and closely interacting with the textual tradition, Taizong had sought to justify his right to rule and project an idealized image of himself as a righteous ruler. He standardized the methodical history writing and initiated a massive compilation project of the earlier dynastic histories. For one of them, the Jin shu, he personally wrote critical evaluations in the end of several chapters. Imperial participation in a scholarly compilation implied the importance and specific purpose attached to the work and the role of historiography in the political establishment.

The newly-established regimes, Jin and Tang, shared a number of similarities: a violent power takeover, unification of the empire, difficulties with the neighboring non-Han population, and problematic choice of an heir. The Jin shu provided the emperor with an advantageous, comparative framework between the two regimes in dealing with identical sensitive issues; where the mistakes of the Jin government led to its fall, Taizong’s decisions, albeit problematic, resulted in a peaceful reign. The Jin shu narrative of imperial failure corroborated the Tang emperor’s self-attribution as a perfect ruler who chose the right course of action for the sake of the country’s stability. The dissertation discusses how the similarities reflected main issues of concern of a newly founded Tang dynasty and revealed inconsistencies in Tang’s rhetoric of rationalization that challenged the uniformity of a purported portrait of Taizong and his reign. I argue that Tang Taizong’s continuous efforts to represent the idealized picture of his own rule and defend his choices essentially reflected his insecurities about his political legitimacy and self-identity.