Originating from the saying "Zhengben Qingyuan" about Emperor Yongzheng

Author: Jin Hengyuan
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-06-01
Features: Innovating on tradition, speaking with substance, offering a unique perspective, forming its own arguments. The secrets of countless rises and falls are hidden deep within the palace, unsaid. The Yongzheng Emperor was a controversial figure in Chinese history, with the controversy primarily centered around two issues: (1) Whether the Yongzheng Emperor ascended to the throne through conspiracy; (2) The evaluation of his achievements and shortcomings. Regarding the first issue, whether the Yongzheng Emperor's accession was in accordance with Kangxi's will, it should be based on Kangxi's actual words and reliable historical records, supported by factual arguments. However, in my opinion, the main arguments and so-called evidence for the legitimacy of the Yongzheng Emperor's accession, as seen in all available materials, are essentially regurgitations of the Great Inquisition and Revelation of the True Meaning (Daiyi Jiumi Lù) by the Yongzheng Emperor. The Great Inquisition and Revelation of the True Meaning was a self-defense document dictated by the Yongzheng Emperor to clear his name. It contains glimpses of his true thoughts and feelings, but it is also riddled with lies and fabrications. Some scholars who argue for the legitimacy of the Yongzheng Emperor's accession have failed to uncover credible historical records and lack the use of Kangxi's actual words or undeniable historical facts to support their claims. Instead, they rely entirely on regurgitating the Yongzheng Emperor's own words or the records fabricated by him to defend the legitimacy of his accession, which only moves them further away from the truth of history, not closer. For example, regarding Kangxi's statement that he wanted to choose a "solid and trustworthy person to rule over you all" in the future, some scholars claim, "This person is the Yongzheng Emperor," citing the Yongzheng Imperial Secretariat Records and Zhao Lian's Records of Glimpses from the Pavilion (Xiaoting Zhalu). However, Zhao Lian's views or the Yongzheng Emperor's views in the Imperial Secretariat Records do not equate to Kangxi's original perspective. Personal opinions by later scholars are not historical records, let alone historical facts. Contrary to the views of some scholars mentioned above, during my research on the Yongzheng Emperor, I discovered that Kangxi's strong desire for a "solid and trustworthy person" was only expressed verbally to the Fourteenth Prince, Yin Zhen. This is the most authentic and reliable original historical evidence to date regarding Kangxi's "solid and trustworthy person."
Another example: Regarding Kangxi's order for Yin Zhen to perform the southern suburbs sacrifice, some argue, "This was Kangxi's attempt to elevate Yin Zhen's social status, a hint that he intended for him to ascend to the throne." However, based on my research into Kangxi's actual words about fasting and sacrificing and his repeated instructions to the princes, I found that Kangxi was using the pretext of the sacrifice to keep Yin Zhen away from his side, ordering him to worship the heavens while also reflecting on "removing his own selfish and delusional thoughts!" Three days before Kangxi ordered Yin Zhen to perform the southern suburbs sacrifice, Kangxi had already arranged for Wu Ergan to be responsible for the security of the southern suburbs sacrifice. In reality, this was a prearranged plan to monitor Yin Zhen. On the very day Yin Zhen was forced to perform the sacrifice, he sent three batches of guards to occupy and control Changchun Garden within a single day. He continued to send troops every day thereafter until Kangxi suddenly passed away. These conspiracies could not have succeeded without the support of Long Kodo. Regarding this matter, the of the Shengzu Emperor originally recorded it as "awaiting the emperor's well-being," but Hongli's of the Shizong Emperor changed it to "requesting the emperor's well-being." Although it is just a single character change, it already speaks volumes. If the Yongzheng Emperor had ascended to the throne legitimately and without conspiracy, why would he need to alter historical records regarding the daily deployment of troops to Changchun Garden just days before Kangxi's sudden death?
As soon as the Yongzheng Emperor took power, he first stripped the titles and exiled Wu Ergan and his son, a clear sign of his impatient retaliation. This was also a manifestation of his ruthless hatred for Wu Ergan, whom Kangxi had sent to monitor him. After Kangxi's death, Long Kodo not only rushed to dictate an "imperial edict" without evidence to support it, keeping the news of the death secret, but the so-called "imperial edict" was also drafted under Yin Zhen's orders—first by Long Kodo, then handed over to the Inner Ministry and the Hanlin Academy for joint drafting. This is new direct evidence of Yin Zhen and Long Kodo fabricating the "imperial edict" of Kangxi.
Combining various historical records, it can be concluded that the "petty men" whom Kangxi scolded in his Face-to-Face Instruction in the fifth year of the Wuyong era (1717) for "plotting to usurp power during a time of crisis" were none other than Yin Zhen! The reason and evidence for this conclusion are that not only had an incident occurred in the fifth year of the Wuyong era (1716) where Dai Duo consulted a Taoist priest on Wuyishan Mountain, who predicted that Yin Zhen was a "man of ten thousand years," but in the first month of the fifth year of the Wuyong era (1717), Dai Duo openly demanded that the Grand Secretary Li Guangdi support Yin Zhen as the crown prince, promising to ensure Li Guangdi's "prosperity and wealth." The Face-to-Face Instruction of Kangxi in the eleventh month of the fifth year of the Wuyong era, especially his scolding of the "petty men" who "sought to usurp power during a time of crisis," was the result of a series of serious events that had occurred and were escalating. The person who lost the succession struggle in 1717 was none other than the Fourth Prince, Yin Zhen!
A clear historical fact: it was precisely after the Face-to-Face Instruction in 1717 that not only did Yin Zhen lose the succession struggle (as seen in Dai Duo's memorial), but whenever a critical moment arose, Kangxi ordered Yin Zhen to leave the capital, never allowing him near his side, until the last few days of his life. The restrictions and suspicions Kangxi held toward Yin Zhen remained consistent until his death.
The question is: is it more reliable to base arguments on Kangxi's actual words and credible historical records, or is it more reliable to rely on regurgitating the words of the Yongzheng Emperor? I leave it to the readers to judge.