This blog is part of a series of posts examining the reliability of information about Wu Zetian. Here the information systems that have provided us with our knowledge of Wu are challenged and scrutinised for bias and accuracy. This post proposes three claims about Wu and her rule. The evidence relating to the claims are investigated and a verdict given on how reliable these claims are. As little primary evidence remains from the time of Wu, our understanding of her as a person and as a ruler is heavily influenced by accounts passed down over hundreds of years. Opinion is offered on how valid these secondary accounts are and the context of the journey these accounts have gone through. This post is best enjoyed with an understanding of Wu, how she rose to power, how she reigned and how she has been remembered. Possible answers to these questions are scattered throughout the blog.
CLAIM ONE: Wu Zetian is the only female emperor of China.
This claim is made up of two aspects which must both be satisfied;
- Firstly; that Wu Zetian was indeed the ruler of China.
- Secondly; that no other female rules of China ever reigned, making Wu the sole female emperor of China.
This should be a straightforward claim to verify. Wu is unanimously agreed as the single female ruler of China by all respected and prominent historians of Ancient China.
There exist numerous examples of her rule, passed through the ages by resilient information systems. These pieces of primary evidence hold the truth of Wu Zetian. They also act as limits to our confirmed knowledge as beliefs beyond these primary evidences cannot be confirmed in the same manner.
EVIDENCE: Qianling Mausoleum in Qian Country, Shaanxi province, China is a Tang dynasty tomb site. This site holds the various members of the House of Li, the imperial family of the Tang dynasty. Wu Zetian is buried here along with her husband Emperor Gaozong. The mausoleum is notable for being the only mausoleum with equally grand tombs for both an Emperor and his wife. Why Wu received this distinction is of course because she was the only woman to have ruled China. Her tomb is marked by a 25ft tall ‘stele’, weighing 98 tonnes and decorated with sculpted dragons and oysters.
There are many stone statues of Empress Wu Zetian. There are notable differences between younger Wu in her dress and headwear. In the younger statues, Wu’s dress appears in line with other consorts to the Emperor during the Tang dynasty. This is not the case in later figures of Wu where she is visualised with Imperial crowns and dress not commonly associated with females of the time. The classic example of the latter Wu is the golden Wu statue in Guangyuan in Sichuan province.
An aspect of Wu’s upbringing that separated her from other females of the time was her education. Her father encouraged her to read and write and develop intellectual skills which were typically garnered solely by males. Wu also learned to play music and write poetry, and notably, speak well in public. While concubines are synonymous with sexual activities, the intimacy of the role gave concubines great opportunity to converse with the Emperor. Wu’s ascent to Empress was founded on the Emperors admiration and fascination of the concubine who was both beautiful and intelligent. Education was the key differentiator between Wu and the female concubines that followed. Wu was raised to believe she was no different to her male counterparts, just as entitled to carry out similar practices and hold positions of power. She did not ask for permission, she simply did. Unfortunately, females entering mainstream education in China did not become the norm for over a thousand years, acting as a barrier for further female rulers.
Wu was raised to believe she was no different to her male counterparts, just as entitled to carry out similar practices and hold positions of power. She did not ask for permission, she simply did.
The features present in the primary evidence of Wu’s existence are not replicated in any other prominent ancient Chinese female figure.
VERDICT: TRUE
CLAIM TWO: Wu Zetian killed her own child to frame the previous Empress and gain station at court.
Wu Zetian is remembered as one of the most ruthless dictators China has ever seen, the root of her dislike is her infamous act of infanticide. Further accusations include dismembering her rival concubines before dipping them in a vat of wine allowing them to gradually bleed to death. There are speculations that her callousness is overstated and used as a ploy by misogynists in the Imperial court to prevent future female rulers from ascending to the throne (which if true, was successful). This claim will be harder to prove or disprove due to the capabilities of information systems to preserve individual acts in Wu’s time. Sound recordings were first preserved in 1860, with video an additional 28 years.
To validate this claim, the act itself will first be analysed to assess the probability of the truth, once the act has been investigated, possible motives will be proposed.
EVIDENCE: The picture of a devious, manipulating and ruthless virago passed down from generation to generation does in part show merit when the evidence is considered.
The act of infanticide is extreme. What possible reason could motivate someone to perform that heinous act. Infanticide has defined the Wu legacy including the subsequent framing of her nemesis, Lady Wang, the Emperor’s wife, but there is no conclusive way of confirming it. At the time of the incident, it was simply the word of Wu against Wang. Initially, Wu’s version events won out and Wang was exiled and later eliminated by Wu. These events are explored in detail in another of post on our blog, ‘Was Wu the Wurst Mother?‘
Wang’s version of events is now widely accepted as true. When evaluating secondary evidence, bias is always present. Later Chinese rulers were likely to have an agenda which would not include glorifying or praising a woman who presumed to rule like a man. History was defined by those in power and to some extent this continues to the modern age. Wu may indeed have been ruthless, conniving, bloodthirsty and dogmatic. She may have committed infanticide to gain the throne. But we must remember to consider the claim in conjunction with its unreliable source. ‘The deepest rage is reserved for women’ a quote by prominent feminist Lena Dunham in a recent article examining how society views women in positions of power. This quote is as applicable to female leaders in Wu’s time as it is today. It is difficult to assess the true legacy of Wu as it is unfair to judge her against her male peers. Wu will have been held to a different standard to every other ruler of China with negative aspects of her reign featuring more prominently in her historical record, such as the killing of her child.
‘The deepest rage is reserved for women’
This callous incident is not an isolated one. Historians have recorded many other instances of Wu’s cruelty to others including her closest family. This gives us a greater insight into Wu as a person, at least the person prescribed to us by ancient Chinese historical recorders. It is understood one of Wu Zetian’s sons was exiled to a remote location in China and isolated to point of suicide. As supreme ruler, it is improbable Wu didn’t have some influence on this decision. Given Wu could allow her son to perish to preserve power, is there anything she wouldn’t do to ascend to the throne?
Given Wu could allow her son to perish to preserve power, is there anything she wouldn’t do to ascend to the throne?
Some historians believe the sexism of the time (not unlike our own), led to greater and more fervent posthumous criticism of Wu. In essence a targeted smearing of the Wu reign. The stele erected at Wu’s tomb in Qianling Mausoleum mentioned in the previous claim, was alike in all regards to other rulers bar one glaring omission. The steles of Chinese rulers are customarily inscribed with a list of accomplishments, this was not the case with Wu. Historians agree, change was seen throughout the Empire during the reign of Wu, why wasn’t any of this monumental progression (discussed in the Contributions of Wu Zetian section of our blog) believed as worthy as a single act of the hundreds enshrined on male steles? Given Wu was the sole female ruler of China it is not absurd to infer the reason for the omission was one of gender. Wu had many achievements worthy of memorialising on the stele. This additional context shows Wu’s reign has not been preserved in history in the same manner as her male counterparts. Some historians characterise the inscriptionless stele as a deliberate attempt to erase women from China’s history.
VERDICT: POSSIBLE BUT INCONCLUSIVE
CLAIM THREE: Wu Zetian was a vindictive tyrant whose reign brought disaster to China
Wu’s reign has been discussed extensively in the blog. This claim requires a disentanglement of the personality of Empress Wu and the outcomes her actions brought her subjects.
Evidence: Firstly, the evidence surrounding the nature of Wu while in power will be analysed. Is ‘tyrannical’ an objective description of Empress Wu, does she deserve to be remembered alongside Mugabe and Mussolini in the annals of history. Professor Zhang Jianlin of Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, the world’s leading archaeologist of the Tang era, has made fascinating discoveries in his most recent excavations that challenge the theory of Wu as an oppressive ruler whose reign was defined by disaster after disaster.
Wu had risen to sovereign with the odds stacked against her, the odds of a successful and distinguished rule were even shorter. A woman in power threatened and even to the present day threatens the patriarchy. For Wu to be viewed as a capable and powerful individual worthy of ruling China, she was forced by society to shed any feminine qualities which could be perceived as weak.
For Wu to be viewed as a capable and powerful individual worthy of ruling China, she was forced by society to shed any feminine qualities which could be perceived as weak
Wu had in effect upset the balance of nature both literally and figuratively. The scholar N. Henry Rothschild notes an earthquake shook the Imperial court shortly after Wu ascended to the throne. The message was received by all,’ a woman in a position of paramount power was an abomination, an aberration of natural and human order’. Omens play a significant role in ancient Chinese culture; the Tang court respected their gravity. When Wu began manipulating events as a man would, one Confucian scholar believed nature itself was revolting, ‘throughout the empire in every prefecture hens changed into roosters’ – you could say hens began announcing the dawn!
Wu was a reformer. One who looked to upend and alter the established Chinese way of doing things. The education system is a prime example of this. Wu invested in local schools for Chinese population, education had previously been reserved for the aristocracy. Wu instigated a competitive standardised examination system known as the keju. Competitive, standardised examinations have stood the test of time and remain a cornerstone of Chinese culture. The keju results were then used to allocate government positions. Hereditary successors usually filled these roles above more talented candidates. While this social change can be perceived in modern times as progressive and positive, this would not have been the case at the time. The aristocracy remained an integral cog in the Chinese power system controlling many systems such as information systems recording history as it unfolded, eventually passed from generation to generation. It is key to consider who benefited from Wu’s reign and who controlled the supply of information from the era.
Conversely, there is evidence for fiscal recklessness. Wu spent a lot of money commissioning statues. While standard behaviour of Chinese rulers, if we consider Wu separate from all other rulers, this can only be a negative. Maitreya is a sacred symbol in Buddhist eschatology. According to tradition, Maitreya will appear as a successor Buddha on earth and achieve complete enlightenment. Wu decreed the workmen of the Longmen Grottoes (UNESCO World Heritage site) outside Luoyang sculpt the face of the largest of the Maitreya statues to resemble her. The monks of the sanctuary were also persuaded (ordered…) to forge the Big Cloud Book (a sacred Buddhist script) to substantiate her claim as Maitreya. Other statues appearing at the cave were also made with the sole objective of elevating her status as a divine ruler who knew best for the people.
Considering all available information about Wu there is no reason to hold her time on the throne as any disastrous departure from the standard ups and downs of reign. No ruler is perfect and Wu certainly wasn’t, her legacy forever fraught with insidious allegations that make it impossible for us not to be somewhat sceptical of Wu Zetian, the sole Empress of China.
VERDICT: FALSE
By Conor Holland
When Hens Announce the Dawn 