Talk:Kangxi Emperor

Early comments

Dates of reign do not math those of the Qing Dynasty article. olivier 11:48, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even dates in the same article don't match up. When did the reign start? 1661 or 1662? – Robocoder (t|c) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abstrakt has explained to me that era years span the lunar year. Thanks. – Robocoder (t|c) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

He wan't the second emperor. The Qing Dynasty was declared in Mukden in 1636. In 1644 Fulin re-declared the establishment of the dynasty, but it was just the pronouncement of taking over China from the Ming Dynasty. And Nurhaci was the virtual founder of the dynasty. So the Kangxi Emperor is counted as the fourth. – Nanshu 01:57, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am afraid you are wrong here, Nanshu. In 1644 Shunzhi's regents including Dorgon and others had officially declared the Existense of the Great Qing Empire with jurisdiction across China, thus declaring Shunzhi the First Emperor of the actual Dynasty. Previous emperors (Nurhaci and Hong Taiji) were not usually referred to as Qing Empire Emperors but instead "The Manchuo Emperor", hence they are only counted as the founders of the dynastic line of rulers but not Emperors of the Qing Empire itself. Colipon 22:19, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean by "actual Dynasty"? The Qing Dynasty was NOT just a Chinese empire, but a pluralistic empire. Again, the Qing Dynasty was established outside China (the Great Wall) in 1636 by recommendation of the Manchus, Mongols and Chinese. The reason of the declaration was that the son of Lingdan Khan, last grand-Khan of the Mongols, dedicated to Hong Taiji what was said to be the seal of the Yuan Emperors. This meant the succession of the Yuan Dynasty. So Hong Taiji became Emperor, changed the dynasty's name to Daicing, named himself "gosin onco hūwaliyasun enduringge han" in Manchu, "Aɤuda örüsiyegči nayiramdaɤu boɤda qaɤan" in Mongolian, and 寬恩仁聖皇帝 in Chinese, and made the era name "wesihun erdemungge" in Manchu, "Degedü Erdemtü" in Mongolian, and 崇德 in Chinese (I forget Mongolian counterparts). Thus, the declaration in 1644 merely meant the succession of China, one of the empire's subject territories, from the Ming Dynasty. – Nanshu 00:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) – modified Nanshu 06:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... makes me wonder. But I have learned from many publications and internet articles that state Kangxi is the second empeoror of the Dynasty, and not one say he is the fourth. Although there is no doubt that Kangxi is the fourth in the line of succession of rulers. Maybe I should do a bit more researching and I trust my own knowledge too much. – Colipon 20:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Missing in the article is his relation with Christian missionaries in China. -wshun 03:38, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I corrected that. NickDupree (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Uh... didn't Kangxi have 4 Empresses during his lifetime? Colipon 04:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Improvement

This article desperately needs some improvement. Missing are the details on the struggle for power with Oboi and Banburshan, revolt of the three feudatories and retaking Taiwan. [[User:Colipon|Colipon – (Talk)]] 16:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added details of the 1717 Dsungar invasion. Zagrebmukerjee, 11:46, 5 June 2005

• Can somebody please change the chinese characters to simplified chinese and not traditional?

Ethnicity of Kangxi's mother

Some Chinese claim that the Kangxi Emperor's mother was Chinese. Her family was considerably sinicized when it pledged allegiance to Nurhaci, yet it was of Jurchen origin. According to Jakūn gūsai Manjusai mukūn hala be uheri ejehe bithe/Baqi Manzhou shizu tongpu 八旗滿洲氏族通譜, it was descended from Darhan Tumet, who is identified as Tong Dalahao 佟答刺哈 in Chinese sources. Some of his descandants lived in Kaiyuan and then Fushun. In 1619 when Nurhaci conquered Fushun, Tung Yang Jeng (佟養正) and his relative Tung Yang Sing (佟養性) were submitted. Tung Tulai was Tung Yang Jeng's second son and the father of the empress. See Volume 20: Tunggiya ba-i Tunggiya/佟佳地方佟佳氏.

I don't know which came first Tong or Tunggiya, but it is an indisputable fact that Tunggiya was a major Manchu clan that prospered in various places of Manchuria, mainly in Maca. Also, Ming Chinese believed the Tong clan was Jurchen. In 1627 a man named Tong Bunian (佟卜年), who lived in Liaoyang, was executed by Chinese on suspicion of kinship with Nurhaci and Tung Yang Sing. – Nanshu 06:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, that's a very interesting comment. The only thing I would ask is this: are you really sure of your sources? A lot of wrong things are being written about these subjects, including in serious Chinese sources, so I tend to be very suspicious about anything related to Manchu subjects. Only a handful of people are really knowledgeable about Manchu language and history in the world, so it's easy to make mistakes or misunderstandings. If you are are absolutely sure of your sources, then I understand that the original clan name of Kangxi's maternal family was Tumet, which was later sinicized into Tong (佟), and then again later "re-manchufied" into Tunggiya. For the records, Manchu clan names ending in -giya are always "manchufied" versions of Chinese family names, and the practice started precisely with the mother of Kangxi. I found that information in many serious Chinese sources. Now, it is possible that the Chinese family name Tong itself was Manchu in the first place, if your sources are right, which makes the matter very complex indeed, and is another proof of the interpenetration between Chinese and Manchu elites, far away from the simplistic idea of a completely foreign people invading and conquering China. So if you're certain about it, I suggest you write in the article the evolution from Tumet to Tong to Tunggiya. Don't forget to correct the Shunzhi article too. Hardouin 13:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Actually, Jakūn gūsai Manjusai mukūn hala be uheri ejehe bithe was compiled as late as the Yongzheng period. And unlike, say, Tang-dynasty records, we can access very early Manchu documents and later ones so that we can analyze how they rewrote history. But forerunners have already compared the book with Ming-dynasty archives and determined that the description on the Tunggiya clan was reliable. The following is based on a paper by Mitamura Taisuke. See: Mitamura Taisuke 三田村泰助, Shinchō zenshi no kenkyū 清朝前史の研究, 1965. He discussed this topic at Chapters One and Two.

According to the book, the Tunggiya clan distributed or originally lived at the following regions: Maca, Yargu, Giyaha and Tunggiya. They formed the same mukūn. Among the clan members, we can find notable figures who were "undoubtedly" Jurchen/Manchu. Baduri of the Maca branch was onf of ten jarguci (judge) of Nurhaci. Hūlahū of the Yargu branch followed Nurhaci from the very early stage and his son Kūrgan (= Darhan hiya) was adopted by Nurhaci. However, it seems that this major clan was not considered to be a honorable family by the Manchus. So Tung Tulai would have had little incentive to assosiate purposely the Tung family to this clan.

It is clear that Tung Yang Jeng and his relatives had used the family name Tung before Nurhaci rose into power. So how far can we trace back the Tung/Tunggiya clan? The only complete genealogy Jakūn gūsai Manjusai mukūn hala be uheri ejehe bithe records is of the Maca branch. Its ultimate ancestor was Bahū Teksin and he was the common ancestor of the whole clan. Bahū Teksin had seven sons: Tun Tumet, Dargan Tumet, Yan Tumet, Yangguri Tumet, Tan Tumet, Eheli Tumet and Gargan Tumet (Note that Tumet are part of their given names). The Maca branch was descendants of Eheli Tumet and Dargan (Darhan) Tumet was the ancestor of the Tunggiya branch. As I said above, Darhan Tumet was identified as 佟答刺哈 by Naito Konan. And what is more, 佟答刺哈 can be found at the section of 佟國臣 of 三萬衛選薄. It says, "佟國臣 is Jurchen. According to it, his ancestor (始祖) 滿只 submitted (to the Ming) at the sixteenth year of Hongwu (1383), and (高祖) 答刺哈 joined the Ming military at the last year of Hongwu." In addition, 國臣's son 應詔 was at the ninth age in 1600. 應詔 and Baduri's father shared the generation. We can conclude that the ancestor of the Tunggiya clan really existed and that the surname Tung was used from the early Ming period.

Now I support the theory that Tunggiya originated in the Chinese surname Tong too. But I don't know why you think "the practice started precisely with the mother of Kangxi." Actually, the practice can date back to the Jurchen Jin Dynasty. 金史/金國語解/姓氏 says "完顏，漢姓曰王" and "古里甲曰汪". the surname 括兒牙 (kor-ya) appears at Joseon's 御龍飛天歌. 完顏 corresponds to the Manchu clan name wanggiya and 古里甲=括兒牙 to Gūwalgiya. Thus 完顏 = 王家. The meaning of *kor is not clear but Mitamura guesses that it means gate or house in Jurchen. So it is possible that the clan name Tunggiya was domestically used from very remote times. – Nanshu 07:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What a perplexing discussion. There are recorded facts that make this all clear. Tong （仝，童， 佟） does not have anything to do with Tumet. It was used by affiliates of the Jurchen Gioro lineage in Chinese-speaking areas since the time of Tao Zongyi's Zhogeng lu, where it is recorded. It was used by both Nurgaci and Surgaci, and probably by Mengke Temur. It is not originally a Chinese name. The Tonggiya valley took its name from the Gioro settlements in the times of Fanca, and, yes, Tonggiya is Chinese – 佟家， the settlement of the Tongs (who were Jurchen). It was also not a lineage name, but a marker of political affiliation (which partly coincided with lineage affiliations). I have written this all out twice, once in an article in 1983 and again in A Translucent Mirror, which Nanshu has evidently read. There are some old disproved ideas about this, but these facts are not currently in dispute among those who have researched it. I would like to be able to direct my students to Wikipedia, but if you can't get this right (and a lot of other stuff appearing in WP regarding the Qing), I won't be able to. I mean, you have a page on Xiao Kang Zhang that says she was "Han Chinese"! Researchers have not thought that for thirty years. – pkcrossley 18:27, 28 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Sacred Edict

Could something be added on the [http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/kang-hi.htm Sacred Edict? Filiocht 09:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Age of succession

The english part says that kangxi become emperor at the age of 7, but some other languages says 8.

That's probably because the old Chinese way of telling age (虚岁) is one year difference than the typical western way of telling age. The old way makes the child one at the moment of birth. Colipon+(T) 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Kangxi was born Xuanye

How can he be 8 in February 1661 if he was born in May 1654? That makes him either 6 or 7, depending on the system. Yeah987654321, 18:33, 14 December 2008

No. Born in May 1654, in Febrauary 1661 (3-3o of the First Chinese Month) he is 8 by the Chinese way. When he was born, he was 1; a new year come, he grow one older; therefore in 1661, he is 1661-1654+1=8. In Chinese sytem, if a child born in the last day of a year, in the next day he is age 2.--刻意(Kèyì) 01:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Posthumous name

Can someone please mark the tones on the transcription of his posthumous name? – Blackfield 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kangxi fourth emperor

I changed Kangxi from being third emperor to fourth of the Qing, as there were three emperors before him (Nurhachi, Hung Taiji, and Shunzhi). The reason I write this comment is because I am recently learning about the Qing Dynasty, and do not know if there is perhaps a technicality that might make this emperor in fact, the third of the Qing Dynasty. If there is such a technicality, it would be interesting to add it in the information if someone could. One more thing, I just remembered that it was actually Hung Taiji who renamed the Dynasty from Jin to Qing, so he could be third emperor. However, in history, Nurhachi is usually referred to as the first Qing emperor since the reason why Hung Taiji changed the name was just to avoid internal disputes, which is written in the wiki of Hung Taiji. I believe he should be named fourth emperor as nothing really changed but the name when Hung Taiji was in power. Feel free to change if you would like to however.

Vandalized

This page has been vandalized. Just letting everyone know.

Contradiction

Actually two contradictions. One is minor, the other is not. Between ". In 1690, the Dzungar and the Manchu Empire clashed at the battle of Ulaan Butun in Inner Mongolia, during which the Qing army was severely mauled by Galdan." and (from the article about Galdan) "The Qing deceived him to arrive near Beijing saying that they needed a treaty, but ambushed him at Ulaan Budan, where Galdan's troops were seriously defeated by the Khalkha troops supported by the Qing army". Avihu (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Major restructuring and questions

I have restructured this article and improved the wording in a lot of places. I hope I haven't lost any facts or misconstrued anything that I found ambiguous.

Some questions:

• Why was this emperor born on two dates (4 May 1654 in intro, 12 May 1654 in Kangxi Emperor#Early reign)? I would have thought this was difficult even for an emperor to do!
• What are references "Mantienne", "Manteigne" and "Les Missions Etrangeres"? They are mentioned in Kangxi Emperor#Notes but not given in full anywhere.
• Should this article now be rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale? (See top of this page.)
• Why is this article marked "contains original research"? Is it because of the section on Kangxi Emperor#Disputed succession?
• The section on Kangxi Emperor#Disputed succession is too long for this article. Could it go in a (new?) subsidiary article? It overlaps a lot of detail on the same subject in Yongzheng Emperor#Disputed Succession to the throne.

AWhiteC (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have subsequently added a section called 'Personality and achievements' using material out of S. E. Finer's History of government. AWhiteC (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What's happening with the referencing system? Things look a little odd at the moment. There's "notes," which have references in there, then only one "reference," and then only Spence in the sources. Is there an ideal way this should fit together? I will add some info from the Spence text later. – Asdfg12345 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the input. As I see it, the notes/references are in transition from notes-only format to notes+references format, if you see what I mean. I admit to being responsible for starting this change. Feel free to either continue the change-over or revert it as you see fit. As for sources; as I understand it, these are works that are not explicitly referenced in the text, so a separate section is needed. Let me know what you think. AWhiteC (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

kangxi emperor in popular culture

"prisoner of five boulders" is a feature film based on episodes in the emperor kangxi's life. specifically, it details his (alleged) search for his father. the film was apparently produced in mainland china and features an actor known as "wang ju" as the emperor. an actor called "yang dezhi" also appeared in the film. i'd be interested in getting more information about this picture. (i've seen it, but my copy doesn't include a credit sequence.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.236.170 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox too long

Surely there are far too many "Issue" listed in the infobox? It is pushing all the pictures down on the page. Can the issue not be listed in the text instead? Cannot we have "Issue - See text"? Any other suggestions for shortening the infobox would be welcome. "Creating overly long templates with a number of irrelevant fields is not recommended." (MoS (infoboxes)) AWhiteC (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

National treasury

I have reinstated this section because it is important. It may lack citations and have other inadequacies, but surely all that means that it should be provided with citations etc, rather than be deleted altogether. AWhiteC (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not the only problem. I don't dispute that it's important, nor do I even dispute its factual accuracy. But it needs to be fit into the greater context of the article, cleaned-up, and give its due weight. It's inappropriate to just slap on a section without discussing its relevance in the greater context. The citation is a problem, which merely adds to my case for deleting the section. Colipon+(Talk) 00:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Have renamed and tweaked the section. I don't have a reference for the data, so can't provide a citation. Having renamed the section, it now needs more content; there's more to an economy than the state treasury! AWhiteC (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You just changed the title of the section - it's not much of a substantive change and still looks like a slap-on section. If you're going to put something like that on there please explain in at least one paragraph what significance it has and make an effort to tie it to the rest of the article. Otherwise I am sure other editors would concur with me for deleting that section. Colipon+(Talk) 14:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Offspring of emperor

I have reverted edits made by Xuansit as they seem wrong. The names of two offspring of the emperor had been changed. The resulting names don't look right as Chinese words, so I am doubtful if this is valid. If you have any comments on this, please put them below. AWhiteC (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

They looked just fine as Chinese words to me, and doing a quick look-up over at mandarintools.com shows that "禶" is in fact zan3, and "禕" is yi1. siafu (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)