were translated and published by foreigners place the title T'ienteh in the position usually occupied by the emperor's name in imperial mandates. Until the rebels reached Nanking it was generally understood that they had proclaimed their ruler under that title. When they had taken Nanking and foreigners first came into contact with them there, all traces of the title disappeared, the monarch being known as 'T'ienwang,' while the title T'ienteh was disclaimed entirely.[1] Several theories are advanced to account for this strange occurrence, among which the choice will depend on one's attitude towards the genuineness of a document known as the "Confession of Hung Ta-ch'üan," who was captured by the imperialists at Yungan, and claimed to be T'ienteh.[2]
This confession, if the writer actually be what he pretends, will clear up the difficulty and enable us to gain a
- ↑ "Trip of H. R. M. Plenipotentiary, Sir George Bonham, Bart., etc., in the Hermes to Nanking, April 22, 1853." Reprinted from the North China Herald of May 7, 1853.
- ↑ T. Meadows, China and her Rebellions, pp. 240, 241 note, rejects the whole tradition of T'ienteh, believing that there never was such a person, and that the confession of Hung Ta-ch'üan is a fabrication by a rebel who desired a little cheap glory, since he was doomed to death in any ease. He sees no evidence of suppression in the insurgent books. If there is any basis for the mistake he inclines to the view that Hamberg's theory is the best.
Hamberg's theory is that Hung Siu-ch'üan himself is T'ienteh, but that the title is a misunderstanding of the last two characters, T'ienkuo, in the name of the new empire, "Taiping T'ienkuo," which stood where the imperial designation usually stood. This being wrongly understood among mandarin-speaking Chinese soldiers from the north would naturally become changed to T'ienteh, a more suitable imperial designation. He implies that this was the explanation received from his informant, presumably Hung Jin.
As against this is the fact that several proclamations of the rebels are translated by Medhurst, and the character of the original is given. There is no confusion possible in the written characters, which are very different; Here no vocal misunderstanding is possible.
Brine, pp. 136-138, accepts Hung Ta-ch'üan's confession as true, but is at a loss to understand his place in the movement.
