Chinese Vernacular Architecture

Inside the southern Lizhengmen Gate is called A Thousand Steps Corridor, which is about 700 steps. [1] [There is] a Lingxingmen Gate with screen walls. [The walls are] about 20 li in circumference. The locals call them the Hongmen Lanma Wall. About dozens of (another version says twenty) steps inside the gate is a river. Three white stone bridges, called Zhouqiao Bridges, are built on the river, with carvings of dragons and phoenixes and auspicious clouds, as bright as jade. Underneath the bridges are four white stone dragons projecting from the water, quite a splendid scene.

This is how a brief text, merely four to five pages long, on the palace complex of the fallen Yuan dynasty (1271 – 1368) was started by its author Xiao Xun, an official from the succeeding Ming dynasty (1368 – 1644), at the end of the fourteenth century. Entitled (Yuan) Gugong Yi Lu [Relics of the Former (Yuan) Palace], [2] this text would be considered by subsequent scholars of palatial buildings, or more generally, historic architecture from the Yuan period, and other related aspects of the Yuan dynasty, as one of the most valuable and reliable primary sources on their specific subject. Although during the long five to six centuries after the text first appeared in print,[3] there has been continuous suspicion expressed about the accuracy of it, the text nevertheless has – even to this day – been quoted and referenced over and over again, with the few occasional deviations seeming to buttress its relevance and validity just the same. My essay thus examines the process and means through which this particular text, Relics of the Yuan Palace, has been constructed into a reliable and valuable historic source on the Yuan palaces. I will pay close attention not only to the original text itself, but also, and more importantly, to subsequent citing and referencing, sometimes straight-forward copying (although not always with acknowledgment), more often editing and rewriting of the original. I intend to trace the development of the narrative as it goes through various interpretations, particularly in the more influential discourse. Through this peculiar example, I will argue that historic narratives, however ambiguous their origins and value might have been, gradually but steadily gain validity and credibility in time through the simple act of narrating, repeating and rewriting.

Xiao Xun’s account was presumed to have been written (though there was no exact indication of the time when it was written or first published in his own text) during the very first years of the Ming dynasty. One particularly curious aspect surrounding this account is the situation under which Xiao’s visit to or writing of the Yuan palace compound occurred. Just as shown at the beginning of this essay, Xiao Xun himself did not leave any note about the occasion, time, length or purpose of his visit to the Yuan palace. In fact, he never stated explicitly that he did in fact visit the palace. The only information we have on the circumstance of his “visit” comes from two prefaces which were added subsequently to the original text, one from the later period of the first Ming emperor Hongwu’s reign (1368 – 1398), in the year 1396; the other from much later, in 1616. Both prefaces stated that Xiao was able to visit the Yuan palace because he was an official of the Ministry of Works (Gong Bu) and was involved in the “destruction” of the Yuan capital/ palace.

Editing and correcting already appeared at this early stage. As the author of the second preface told us, he “transcribed, edited” and “corrected a few dozens of words” [4] of the text when he first obtained it at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Subtle differences can be discerned in even these early readings of the text, shown in the prefaces. As Shan Shiyuan, a veteran expert on the Forbidden City, pointed out, the first preface, written more than 200 years earlier than the second, stated that “[Xiao Xun was] an official at the Ministry of Works during the early years of the Revolution,[5] and ordered to Beiping[6] with his superiors to destroy the Yuan capital,” (emphasis mine) whereas the second one said that “The first year of Emperor Hongwu’s reign (i.e. the year 1368) saw the destruction of the Yuan dynasty, after which the emperor ordered the Yuan palace (emphasis mine) to be destroyed, [7] and Xiao Xun, an official of the Ministry of Works, was charged with the destruction.” [8]

Xiao Xun started his account of the palace compound from the formal southern gate, Lizhengmen Gate. His (assumed) visit of the palace could be traced roughly along his trajectory of the whole compound, where he walked, presumably, through the formal court area, located south-eastern of the lakes, and moved westward to the lakes, where were located the palaces for the crown prince and imperial family, and a resort, all the while noticing the most significant entrance ways and gate towers, palace halls, bridges and more. His description of the compound was full of numerical references to number, size, scale of the structures, together with directions, orientations and decorations of the buildings which often conjure up a literary sensation. The author ended his account with a short reference to and comment on the demise of the late Yuan dynasty, which, according to him, was brought about by its last emperor’s negligence of his court responsibility, and followed by the Ming army’s victory in overthrowing the decaying dynasty.

Xiao’s original text is by no means as clear in its spatial indication of direction, location, or dimension as later readings and interpretations have made it to be. It sometimes takes an understanding of the archaic classical terms for traditional (palatial) architecture for granted; or it introduces words or terms abruptly, or changes them without explanation; other times, the clarity of the spatial reference indicating the author’s movement through the compound is lost amidst lengthy descriptions of decorations adorning various buildings. Most of the time, however, the text is painfully unclear in its meaning largely because of the highly abbreviated way of classical Chinese writing. For example, in the few lines right after describing the willows around the bridges mentioned in the quote at the beginning of this essay, Xiao’s text runs like the following. I have highlighted its ambiguity in meaning in italicized comments inside parentheses (the alternative versions for disputed parts that are also available in the text are omitted), and used square brackets to indicate words or phrases that are left out in the classical writing:

The bridges are about 200 steps long. [Off the bridges is] (Presumably located northward) Chongtianmen Gate (Or does it mean 200 steps away from the bridges is the Gate?). There are five [openings of the gate] with one que tower built atop. The wings are encircled galleries, low and connecting two guan (Sudden introduction of term/structure: what guan? and where are they located?). Beside (On which side? Left or right? East or west? North or south? ) the guan are cross-shaped three-storey corner towers. Both sides are about 100 steps away from the Wumen Gate (Abrupt change of term: does this Wumen Gate refer to the same Chongtianmen Gate? Later readings seem to think so, largely because the corresponding formal entrance to the Forbidden City of the Ming & Qing dynasties are called Wumen.). [There are] side entrances (Side entrances into what? How many of them are there?), with high towers/pavilions (Where? How many?). The inner city is about six or seven li (Does this mean square li? Because li, a Chinese measurement unit equaling 500 meters, is a measurement of length rather than of size.) in size, square in plan, with cross-shaped towers on each of the four corners. On the left [of the inner city] is a gate called Donghuamen Gate, on the right, Xihuamen Gate (Again, where exactly are these gates located? Half way in the palace wall, or in the lower/southern part of the wall as later interpretations suggest and dispute on?). Inside the Wumen Gate (Wumen Gate again, instead of the Chongtianmen Gate), about a few dozens of steps away, is Damingmen Gate. This gate is also flanked by side entrances, with a wu surrounding it (Since a wu structure is a covered corridor/gallery wrapping around a main building to form an inward-facing, enclosed courtyard, which direction does this wu and courtyard go? Northward behind the gate or southward in front of the gate?) covering half of the central platform. [9]

Suffice it to emphasize here that the above section of the text, appearing at the beginning of the author’s description, is comparatively comprehensible and clear in its meaning; the later part of the text only gets more puzzling and confusing. Subsequent citations, however, persist to follow and interpretations of the original text – actually not strictly “original,” as we already know, the current text was an edited work of the second prefacer – vary within scholars’ discourse. One of the most important early sources that cited Xiao’s account was the work of Zhu Yizun (1629 – 1709), a scholar from the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. In the appendix to the 1688 Ri Xia Jiu Wen [Old Stories of the Capital City], Zhu’s encyclopedic anthology of virtually every aspect of the city of Beijing written till his time, Xiao’s account of the Yuan palace was cited in its entirety by his son, who edited and expanded his work. For Zhu’s son the editor, who highly regarded Xiao as a “conscientious observer,” someone who “attentively recorded the form, plan and system of the palace while destroying it,” [10] the only regret of Xiao’s text, if any, was the fact that it concerned only the palace “inside the gate” and not the whole city.

It quickly became necessary to extend Zhu’s work on a substantial scale, as the Qianlong Emperor (ruled 1735 – 1795) saw it. A group of high ranking and well-known scholars of the time were charged with this task, and they made sure that Zhu’s original book of 42 volumes were verified and enlarged to 136 volumes, which were published during 1785 – 1787 under the title of Ri Xia Jiu Wen Kao [Clarifications of the Stories of the Capital City]. In the section on the Yuan palaces, the authors of the Clarifications first gave a brief account of their sources, including Jin Bian, Yongle Da Dian, Zhao Jian Lu, Chuo Geng Lu, etc. Xiao Xun’s account was introduced as “fairly complete,” yet “the location and direction [of the palaces and buildings] were often not in agreement with the other sources.” [11] As for a later book entitled Da Du Gong Dian Kao [Verifications of the Grand Capital’s Palaces], a shortened version of Xiao’s text, the authors of the Clarifications thought that it was only derivative of Xiao’s work, and thus even less credible. Their solution to this problem, however, was to “follow the text of Zhu’s original work, and verify and correct when necessary those that are not concordant with other accounts. As for the items that are still in question, they will be left out for future verifications.” [12]

So the authors of the Clarifications dismissed Xiao Xun’s work for its inaccuracy, yet they stuck with the original work of Zhu Yizun, whose account of the Yuan palace came mostly from Da Du Gong Dian Kao, which, according to them, was but a lesser version of Xiao Xun’s work. Of the citations from Da Du Gong Dian Kao, the authors of the Clarifications pointed out errors in the source in some places; at other places, they accepted what was being cited as “correct” and “true,” and thus in no need of clarification or correction. It can be inferred that this was because that these citations from Da Du Gong Dian Kao were found to be the same as descriptions in other sources.

One example of the authors’ remedial method to verify and smooth out the differences in (really) Xiao’s text by cross-references to other sources can be found in the case of two small side halls called Wensi Hall, and Zitan Hall. In Da Du Gong Dian Kao, Xiao’s text was cited: “Behind the Yanchun Pavilion are more covered corridors, with Wensi Hall located to the east, and Zitan Hall to the west.” [13] The authors of the Clarifications concluded that this was a mistake from Xiao’s text that was repeated by the author of Da Du, since the other three sources they consulted, Zhao Jian Lu, Chuo Geng Lu, and Jin Bian, all stated that these two side halls were located next to the Hall of Daming, not the Yanchun Pavilion.

Another extensive clarification and correction of Xiao’s text happened after the text was cited wholly by Zhu Yizun’s son in the appendix to Zhu’s original anthology. Here the authors of the Clarifications reiterated that “there are many accounts of Xiao Xun that are in disagreement with other sources,” before listing them out. Among the examples given are locations of particular halls and gates, names of palaces, material of objects (i.e., the Jade Urn was not gold), and the building(s) that were left out in Xiao’s account. At the end of the section, the authors of the Clarifications also speculated on the cause of Xiao’s misinformed account: “It’s likely that when Xiao was dismantling the Yuan palaces, what he saw was only from a quick glance at thousands of doors and gates inside the compound. How could he not have been mistaken at times?” [14]

There are three obvious points that we can draw directly from the above section in the Clarifications: firstly, that Xiao Xun was indeed presumed to be in the palace compound in person; secondly, that he was there to “destroy” the palaces; and thirdly, that there were mistakes in his account of his visit to the palace. All these points are to be taken up and taken for granted in later citations of scholars and writers who regarded Xiao Xun as a primary source on the Yuan palatial buildings. A much later reissue of Xiao’s work in 1980 serves as a typical example. In the editors’ explanation for the publication, it thus states: “Accounts of Yuan’s palace buildings only occur in a very few books, … and often are sporadic. The complete account can be found only in this Relics of the Yuan Palace, since in the Yuan dynasty, commoners were not allowed in the palace… [But] Xiao Xun, in his official capacity, visited the palace compound, and recorded the whole image of the palace.” [15] In validating Xiao’s account thus as “the most complete” based on a presumably more trusted mode of knowledge acquisition – the empirical experience of the author – the critical, or at least suspicious stance to Xiao’s work as proposed in the Clarifications has been lost. Even though the editors also acknowledged the occasional inaccuracy of the account, as noted in the Clarifications, but to them, Xiao’s text was still “a most important reference to the studies of the Yuan palaces.” [16]

A closer look at Xiao’s “visit” to the Yuan palace here is necessary for our understanding of what and where the problem might be. Just as Shan Shiyuan pointed out, there are many questions to be asked about the assumption that the early Ming dynasty saw the destruction of the Yuan palace at the very beginning of the new regime, and that Xiao was involved in this process. I mentioned earlier that Xiao’s text itself did not provide any information on his visit. The assumption, as drawn from the authors of the Clarifications, that he was there for “destruction” was based on the two prefaces to Xiao’s text. But, to paraphrase Shan, there was first of all, a shift from “the former capital” to “the former palace” as the object of “destruction” in these two prefaces. Secondly, these were added later to Xiao’s text, the authors and their prefaces bearing no direct relation to Xiao Xun himself. Shan also cited other sources, including Shi Lu, [17] Zu Xun Lu, [18] and contemporaneous documentary and literary evidence, to argue that at the beginning of the Ming dynasty, at least until Xiao’s visit – Shan also took it as true that Xiao did visit the palace – to the palace, the Yuan palace mostly likely survived. In other words, Shan Shiyuan concluded, that it was wrong to assume that Xiao Xun was there at the Yuan palace to “destroy” it, as the style of his account “read like a travel journal,” [19] that actually “the Qionghua Isle, Xingsheng Palace and Longfu Palace [20] survived during Emperor Hongwu’s reign” and that “it is possible that the destruction of the Daming Hall [21] did not occur until between the sixth and the fourteenth year of Hongwu’s reign (i.e. between 1373 – 1381).” [22]

Even though Shan did not account for Xiao’s visit to the palace either – he merely stated that “Xiao Xun, a langzhong [23] of the Ministry of Works during the Hongwu period, was at the Yuan palace in person” [24] – his conclusion that a substantial part of the Yuan palace compound survived well into or until the first emperor’s reign, bears great relevance to our investigation of subsequent readings of Xiao’s text. For example, if Xiao was not there to “dismantle” the Yuan palace, what was he there for? If he was indeed “touring” the palace, when did he go, and for how long? How many times did he go? How did he obtain the measurements of the buildings? How and when did he record what he saw, on site or out of memory? By asking these questions, we see how dubious it is to assume that Xiao was indeed there for the destruction of the palace and to conclude therefore that he was bound to make such mistakes resulted from “a quick glance at thousands of doors and gates” as speculated by the authors of the Clarifications.

Yet the same assumption and conclusion continue to appear in later readings, which sought to make sense of Xiao’s often confusing account in constructing a crystallized and complete image of the Yuan palace through cross-references to other sources. Various attempts were made, mostly in text, but later also in map renderings of the palace compound, since nothing else was thought capable of conveying a clearer image than maps. One early effort to create such maps was made by Zhu Qiqian (1871 – 1964), the founder of the first non-government Society for the Study of Chinese Architecture. But his maps, although praised for their contribution to the study of Yuan palatial architecture in a clearer and supposedly more scientific form, were also questioned by Zhu Xie (1907 – 1968), a self-taught archaeologist who was determined to compile an illustrative – i.e. with the aid of photographs and maps – verification of Beijing’s ancient and imperial architecture, starting with his first publication in 1936 on the Yuan palaces, entitled Yuan Da Du Gong Dian Tu Kao/ Visual Verifications of the Yuan Grand Capital’s Palaces.