Changsha, which did not happen, places it in the last few days before the siege was given up, that is, when mines were being prepared to blow up the city wall. These were sprung on November 10, 13, and 29. Its interest lies in the fact that until within a few days of this ceremony at Changsha the term "T'ienteh" was still used to designate the reign.
All these can be understood if the course of events followed the order suggested here, but become puzzling if Hung really was from the first the leader and prime mover in the rebellion. But this view has its difficulties also. Brine records in his book that within a few days after the Taiping hosts had taken Nanking a letter was handed to the Rev. Issachar J. Roberts, Hung's former instructor in Canton, inviting him to visit Nanking. This letter was said to be sealed with a seal about two inches square on which were cut the words "T'ienteh Taiping Hwang Yin" (Seal of the emperors T'ienteh and Taiping).[1] In the absence of the original seal one can but reserve judgment. If it is genuine and was actually sent from Nanking, the indications would point to the T'ienwang as having the double designation of T'ienteh and Taiping. But if that was true in 1853, just before the capture of Nanking, why should all knowledge of the term T'ienteh have been denied Just a few weeks later?
We must also hold in mind that none of the later Taiping documents bear any allusion to a co-ruler with Hung. T'ienteh, if he existed, was obliterated in their records and remains only in imperialist works and earlier proclamations. This consideration led Meadows[2] to dismiss the confession of Hung Ta-ch'üan with a shrug, re-
- ↑ It is hard to comment on this without the text of the seal in Chinese, It may have been dispatched before the fall of Changsha. If later, it is inexplicable* Also the transliteration implies the character used for emperor rather than that for wang or king, which they generally used. Brine, p. 202.
- ↑ The Chinese and their Rebellions, pp. 240 f.
