tinued to retain his title of wang, what was the significance of the ceremony? Without dogmatising from the slender clues we have, does it not seem probable that whereas Hung had been one of two sovereigns, and that by now the fate of T'ienteh had become known to them, the ceremony at Changsha was the advancing of the Taiping-wang or T'ienwang to the position of sole monarch.[1] Certainly all the documents that reached the hands of foreigners in the early course of the rebellion are dated in the reign of T'ienteh. This would indicate that, despite what he says in his confession, he was considered the reigning monarch in the new movement as late as 1852.[2]
One interesting document which, from internal evidence, may be dated some time just before the final assaults on Changsha, is issued in the name of Hung, "Captain-general of the army, having entire superintendence of military affairs and aiding in the advancement of the T'haeping, or Great Pacificating Dynasty, in obedience to the will of Heaven," and is dated in the second year of T'ienteh.[3] There is some misinformation in the document, for it mentions the tranquillising of Changsha and the intention to depart for Kwangsi (which should perhaps be Kiangsu). Since the exact date is not mentioned, I venture to think that it was an advance proclamation prepared for posting on the walls of various down-river cities, and for this reason leaving the month and day to be filled in later. Its mention of the tranquillising of
- ↑ The earlier writers refer to Hung as T'aiping-wang (King of Peace), though later he was always styled T'ienwang. I am inclined to suspect that he changed the designation at Changsha, but cannot prove it. If there were proof it would establish the superiority of T'ienteh, as all the other evidence seems to do.
- ↑ A few such are recorded in Medhurst's translations in the North China Herald, reprinted in pamphlet form under title Peking Gazette, 1853-1866, an incomplete copy of which is in my possession.
- ↑ In the reprints referred to in the last note, p. 77.
