Ah, excellent! Thank you very much for this information and the photographs.
<hr>
Edit: Presenting a compilation of information researched in this thread (many thanks to Great Deer, Lady Wu, Adrian, Starscream), assembled by me over 2006–2007, and elaborated significantly, and with profound thanks, by Dr. Rafe de Crespigny. I will update it as additional details become available in this thread and through Kongming’s Archives.
<hr>
Well, as a few of you know I’ve [painfully] compiled information in this thread, and from around the ’net, on a few occasions, and in the past I sent a summary of our theories and conclusions to Dr. Rafe de Crespigny. Always helpful, always a gentleman, he wrote me back and carefully elaborated on each of our conclusions. In this process he provided a great deal of original insight, pointed out many mistakes, and helped to bridge many gaps that didn’t quite make sense.
Still, though, the subject was quite complicated for me.
This evening I recalled it and decided to finally put everything together. If for any reason I started to honor Dr. Rafe de Crespigny’s decision to devote his own personal time to answering my questions in detail, but as it started to come together, I began to understand it all with much greater clarity. I have now learned several new things and I am truly happy for it.
The <i>Fujie</i> page on Kongming’s Archives, though consistent with or even more detailed than many similar documents around the ’net, is grossly inaccurate! But it won’t be for long.
I also want to thank Florence, Adrian and Starscream for their knowledge. Their thoughts and research too have found their way into the collective research document I’m going to share below. If any of you see additional errors, have additional insights, or if anyone has any comments to share, they are certainly more than welcome.
<hr>
Representations of Han and Three Kingdoms Authority
Covering everything from tiger tallies (<i>hujie</i>) to yak-tails.
<b>Fu (符): Identification Tallies</b>
A <i>fu</i> (符) or ‘tally’—a translation which is not particularly clear—was an object, usually split in two matching parts, sometimes carved in the likeness of an animal (e.g. a tiger or fish), and was used as a credential or representation of authority. Because validation of a two-piece <i>fu</i> required both parties to be in the same location they were probably used most commonly in limited areas such as in the palaces at the capital. <i>Fu</i> were also given in grades. Bielenstein, <i>Bureaucracy</i>, p33 provides a good description: regular visitors had iron tallies [<i>fu</i>] with half kept at the relevant gate [and verified upon passage]; temporary visitors were issued [tallies] in wood which were collected when they came out. <i>Fu</i>, as defined here, were generally not used in distant communication for this reason.
Cao Cao, for example, was granted a <i>hufu</i> covering the first through fifth grades (第一至第五) presumably granting him clearance at a greater level than those possessing <i>hufu</i> at a lower grade. Also demonstrating that <i>fu</i> come in different forms, Cao Cao was also granted a bamboo tally (竹使符 literally ‘bamboo to use as a tally’) at first through tenth grades (2).
<blockquote>(2): Chen Shou, <i>Sanguozhi</i>: Wei 1.</blockquote>In general terms a <i>fu</i> was not necessarily an actually tally, but was sometimes a simple document granting authority to travel, not unlike our present-day passport and visa system. Loewe, <i>Records of Han Administration</i> I (Cambridge University Press 1967) had an excellent discussion, and at p. 112 he cites a bamboo strip which is described as a <i>fu</i> 符; he renders the term as “passport” which seems an accurate translation. Loewe also describes how such passage credentials be needed not only on the frontier but also at various passes within the empire (e.g. to enter the territory about the capital). (1)
<blockquote>(1): With many thanks to Dr. Rafe de Crepigny for this knowledge.</blockquote>Guo Dan, for example, is described in <i>Sanguozhi</i> (三國志) as using a <i>fu</i> to gain passage through Xiangu Pass (3). <i>Dongguan Han Ji</i> (東觀漢記) goes into more detail, saying Guo Dan didn’t have a <i>fu</i> with him, forcing him to purchase one from a commoner of Wan before he could pass. Clearly the <i>fu</i> is used in this case as a passport.
<blockquote>(3): 後從師長安,買符入函谷關,乃慨然歎曰:「丹不乘使者車,終不出關。」</blockquote>
<b>Hufu (虎符): Tiger Tallies</b>
Tiger Tallies, or <i>hufu</i> (虎符), were two-piece <i>fu</i> formed in the shape of a tiger. The material from which tiger tallies were created varied through Chinese history and included everything from jade and gold to bronze. According to <i>Hou Han shu</i> (後漢書) tiger tallies made of bronze were used for kings, heads of commanderies, and similar high and comparatively static ranks. They were not common. The <i>Hou Han shu</i>’s explanation applies accurately to the Han and the Three Kingdoms and to a degree to surrounding periods: at different points in Chinese history the actual material used in creating tiger tallies varied, but their fundamental purpose remained the same.
A noteworthy degree of confusion exists behind the way in which ‘tiger tally’ is rendered in Chinese. <i>Hufu</i> (‘tiger mark’ or ‘tiger symbol’), the literal and most obvious rendering, does not commonly appear. At times tiger tallies may be described simply as <i>fu</i> (as a tiger tally is a type of <i>fu</i>) and at other times under the even more misleading representation, <i>fujie</i> (符节), which also happens to be the most commonly used term in today’s literature. (See ‘Fujie’ below for more information). While striving for accuracy a translator must be careful in rendering this term.
<b>Jie (節): As ‘Staff of Authority’</b>
<i>Jie</i> (節) can be rendered either as ‘credentials’, referring to a level of authority, or as ‘Staff of Authority’, a physical representation of authority. Citing numerous references in <i>Hou Han shu</i>, a staff of authority was a staff, frequently adorned on the top with fur (often from a yak’s tail) of a specific color (e.g. red or yellow; combining with other physical characteristics to represent the level of a person’s authority). Xu Tianlin (徐天麟), <i>Dong Han Huiyao</i> (東漢會要) (4) compiles references from Han-era histories, including <i>Hou Han shu</i>, for a more comprehensive evaluation: “In the 6th year of Zhongping (AD 189–190) the red yak-fur on <i>jie</i> was reinstated. […] At the beginning of the Han dynasty the yak-tail on <i>jie</i> was purely red. The Emperor Wu, considering how Crown Prince Wei held a red [yak-tailed] <i>jie</i>, changed the <i>jie</i> to feature yellow yak-tails. The Eastern Han followed this tradition. In the 6th year of Jian’an (AD 201–202) Dong Zhuo conferred about deposing the emperor. Yuan Shao thus hung his <i>jie</i> by the yak-tail on the eastern gate and left. Dong Zhuo, because Yuan Shao abandoned his <i>jie</i>, changed the top-ranked <i>jie</i> back to the color of red.” (5)
<blockquote>(4): <i>Dong Han Huiyao</i> (東漢會要) is basically an encyclopedic index of the <i>Hou Han shu</i> and various historical books on the Eastern Han written by Xu Tianlin (徐天麟) during the Song dynasty.
(5): 東漢會要:節
符節令,為符節台率,主符節事。凡遣使掌授節。(百官志)
中平六年,始復節上赤葆。 (百官志注)
臣天麟按:漢初節旄純赤,武帝以衛太子持赤節,乃更節加黃旄。東都因之。中平六年,董卓議廢立,袁紹掛節旄上東門而去。卓以紹棄節,乃改第一葆為赤旄也。</blockquote><i>Hou Han shu</i> (1A, 10), in commentary quoting Ying Shao, <i>Hanguan yi</i> (漢官儀), describes the <i>jie</i> as “an eight <i>chi</i> (184.8 cm) staff with three yak’s tails fastened to the top as tassels.” References describing more than one tail, however, are rare. Chen Shou, <i>Sanguozhi</i> (Wei 6) says, “[The Emperor] appointed Yuan Shu General of the Left and granted him the title of Yangzhuo along with <i>jie</i> privileges. Grand Tutor Ma Midi was sent to conduct the proper ceremonies for the bestowal of honors. Yuan Shu seized the <i>jie</i> from Midi and detained him, refusing to send him back.” (6) From this we can see that a ceremony was held in granting the <i>jie</i>, and that <i>jie</i> were still granted toward the end of the Later Han.
<blockquote>(6): 三國志:以術為左將軍,封陽翟侯,假節,遣太傅馬日磾因循行拜授。<u>術奪日磾節</u>,拘留不遣。</blockquote>In addition to the most common historic references in which conferring of a Staff of Authority was usually granted to an officer, and granted great power, there are also instances where a messenger was sent with a <i>jie</i> for comparatively minor purposes such as granting promotion to a general in the field. The purpose of a <i>jie</i> depend very much on the individual commission and each entry must be read in context to glean proper understanding. (7)
<blockquote>(7): With thanks to Dr. Rafe de Crespigny.</blockquote>
<b>Jie (節): As ‘Credentials’</b>
<i>Jie</i> (節) was also rendered in less material terms to represent <i>jie</i> authority. <i>Jie</i> authority was a level of power afforded an officer beyond that of his regular office. Please see <i>Zhijie</i> below for more information.
<b>Zhijie (持節): “Bearing the Staff of Authority”</b>
<i>Zhijie</i> (‘Bearing the Staff of Authority’ or ‘Bearing Credentials’) represented the act of granting authority, or simply having a specific authority (see below), well beyond the basic power granted by an individual’s substantive office (i.e. <i>jie</i> credentials). <i>Zhijie</i> is also sometimes represented with the basic term, <i>jie</i>. An officer’s authority varied with their individual commission, but in general terms this act conferred plenipotentiary authority (i.e. the right to make decisions independently of the throne or leadership). During the Eastern Han, Three Kingdoms, and Jin periods there were three ‘levels’ of <i>jie</i>:
- <i>Shichijie</i> (使持節): Ability to execute anyone below the rank of 2,000 <i>shi</i> (lower to middle-ranked officers) without court approval.
- <i>Chijie</i> (持節): Ability to execute commoners without court approval.
- <i>Jiajie</i> (假節): Ability to execute violators of military law.
<i>Jiajie</i>, for example, was frequently granted to a commander by his sovereign prior to leading troops, or represented to subordinates to imply execution or punishment should they disobey orders. Rafe de Crespigny explains that in some instances (by policy in the Former Han until about 45 BC, and later to Yuan Shao) the Director of Retainers (<i>sili xiaowei</i>), head of the capital province about Luoyang, and the Inspector of Jiaozhi, in the very far south, both held <i>zhijie</i> rights: the one because he needed authority to control officials at the capital, the other because he was too far away for meaningful communication on every matter.
<b>Fujie (符节): Symbol of Authority</b>
<i>Fujie</i>, though sometimes mistranslated or presented as a term for ‘tiger tally’, usually holds a different meaning. <i>Fujie</i> is more properly used as a physical representation of an officer’s official rank insignia. The real sign of official position was the seal and ribbon. The Han dynasty had an official known as the <i>fujie ling</i> (符節令), which was rendered as Prefect of Insignia and Credentials by Bielenstein <i>Bureaucracy of Han times</i>. It was through this office that these insignia were issued. Seals varied in size and material—the emperor had seven, all in jade, but carried only one, the Great Seal of State. Senior officers had gold, and there were also different colors of ribbon: the ribbon was looped through a ring at the top and then used to tie the seal to the belt. The combination was rather like our modern medal and ribbon for fighting men, and would show a man’s rank quite clearly. (8)
<blockquote>(8): Description of the emperor and officers’ seals provided by Rafe de Crespigny.</blockquote>Back to the Prefect of Insignia and Credentials (符節令): notice of the way in which the title is rendered? <i>Fujie</i> (符節) commonly appears in compound forms such as this. As such a translator should take great care to ensure any occurrences of this term are properly identified and presented.
<b>Jiechuan and Fuchuan: Official Insignia</b>
<i>Jiechuan</i> is a general term, perhaps best translated as ‘official insignia’, which can describe various forms of credentials. <i>Fuchuan</i> is only referenced once in <i>Hou Han shu</i> [23/13.810-11] where it again seems to be a general term for insignia of office, though with the caveat that the commentary says the insignia did take the form of a tally. (9)
<blockquote>(9): Again with thanks to Dr. Rafe de Crepigny.</blockquote>