Richardson, Hugh Edward

English

Apollo (Cambridge)

MING-SI-LIE AND THE FISH-BAG -HUGH E. RICHARDSON Many characteristics of the Tibetans in the VIIth to IXth centuries, as seen through the eyes of Chinese historians, are recognizable in their descendants of the present day. For example, the T' ang Annals describe how in A.D. 702 a Tibetan envoy to Chang'an explained his open de-light at hearing Chinese music as due to his rustic origin in a remote border country. In recent times I found such professions of simplici-ty or ignorance by Tibetan officials used sometimes as a disarming gambit when they wanted to turn asi~e troublesome or contentious business. Neither party took such statements seriously. Nor perhaps did the Chinese in the T'ang dynasty for in 730 when the Tibetans asked for some of the Chinese classics a minister of the Imperial court warned against granting the regue~t because it might increase' the warlike abi-lities of the Tibetans who were not only aggressive but were endowed with energy and perseverance and were intelligent, sharp, and untiring in their love of study. So much by way of introduction to the story of the fish-bag. In A.D. 730 there were discussions about a treaty between the Tibetans and the Chinese who had been at war almost continuously since 670. The leader of the Tibetan delegation to Chang'an was Ming-si-lie who is stated in the T' ang Annals to have known some Chinese and to have been on a mission to China before, in order to escort the princess of Kin-tcheng to Tibet. A banquet Was given in his honour after which the Emperor conversed with him and gave him various presents including what Bushell translates as a "fish-bag" and Pelliot as a "bourse au pois-son" . Ming-si-lie accepted the other presents but politely declined the fish-bag saying that such ornaments were no t uset\ in his country and he did not dare to accept so rare a gift. In the New T' ang Annals the present which Si-lie declined is described as a golden fish. Neither Bushell nor Pelliot throws any light on this incident but the key is to be found in that fUicinating assemblage of miscel1ane ous exotic learning-The Golden Peaches if Samarkand by Professor Edward Schafer. He writes ( p 26) that a fish in bronze, or rather, half such a fish was carried as a token by the envoy of each country that maintained diplomatiC relations with China. 0; arrival, the en~oy produced his half which was compared with the other half, kept at the Imperial court; and he would then be given appropriate facilities according to the pro-5 toeo!' The fish token was carried in a handsome pur~e attachecl to the girdle of a ceremonial robe which would also be presented by the Emperor. Accepting such a gift, even if it were got up in a specially valuable guise, would smack of the acknowledgement of "tributary" status. That was something the Tibetans would not endure. In Le Condie de lhasa Professor Dcmieville states (p 180) that tbe Tibetans had precedence at the Chinese court over all other "barbarians' , . And it is recorded in the T'ang Annals that in 780 the Tibetan king rejected a letter from the Emperor became it Was not phra~ed in terms of equality. The wording had to be altered to omit the offending expressions. Ming-si-lie's refusal of the "fi~h-bag" was, therefore, the act of an adroit diplomatist. A rather similar Chinese manoeuvre waB attempted in 1935 when General Huang Mu-sung visited Lhasa to condole on the death of the XlIIth Dalai Lama. He offered the Tibetan Government a golden seal in honour of the Dalai Lama. It is most unlilely that the Dalai Lann himself would have accepted such a gift from that source but the Chinese m.ay have hoped to find the interim government not yet quite sure of itself. Nevertheless, the offer w .. s at first refmer! because, "as the Dalai Lama was temporarily absent from the body,- there could be no ust'. for a seal". I believe that it was eventuallv decided to be inno( uom and was accepted as a contrihution to the e;pcf ~es of the late Dalai Lama's tomb. It is sad that such diplomatic skirmishes in Sino-Tibetan affairs "\Ve1-e replaced ifl 1950 by the nak ed me of forcE. References to the T'ang Annals are to the translations by S. W. Bushell in the Journal if the Royal Asiatic Socie~, 1880, and by' Paul Pdliot in Histoire Ancienne du TIbet, Paris 196 I. -6 

Ming-si-lie and the Fish-bag

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Apollo (Cambridge)