The Moral Dilemma of Ming Loyalists

Wu Weiye, who resigned from his post as Chancellor of the Imperial Academy under the Qing dynasty due to the 1657 Jiangnan examination scandal and had most of his property confiscated, once eulogized the famous courtesan Chen Yuanyuan, who was said to be the reason Wu Sangui betrayed the Ming dynasty:

因1657年的江南科场案而辞去清朝国子监祭酒之职并被没收了大部分家产的吴伟业,曾咏颂过名妓陈圆圆,据说吴三桂是为了她才背叛明朝的:

Do you not see, when the Guanwa Palace first rose, mandarin ducks nested,

君不见馆娃初起鸳鸯宿,

The Yue girl, like a flower, was never enough to behold.

越女如花看不足 。

On the fragrant path, dust rises, birds cry alone,

香迳尘生鸟自啼,

On the shoe gallery, people have gone, moss grows green in vain.

屉廊人去苔空绿,

Shifting notes and modes, ten thousand miles of sorrow.

换羽移宫万里愁 。

Wu Weiye ultimately submitted to the Qing dynasty, thus bearing a deep sense of guilt, which cast a shadow over his nostalgia:

吴伟业毕竟归顺了清朝,因而深怀负罪之感,并使其怀旧之情罩上了一层阴影:

Old friends were generous, with many extraordinary virtues,

故人慷慨多奇节,

Thinking back to those years, I hesitated and deliberated,

为当年沉吟不断,

Stealing a life among the grass.

草间偷活 。

Moxa burns the brow, melon sprays the nose,

艾灸眉头瓜喷鼻,

Today, it is hard to sever ties completely.

今日须难诀绝 。

Early suffering and hardship come again in layers.

早患苦重来千叠 。

Shedding wife and children is no easy task,

脱屣妻孥非易事,

In the end, worth not a penny—what need is there to say more?

竟一钱不值何须说 。

The affairs of the human world,

人世事,

How many are complete, how many are lacking.

几完缺 。

As if to atone for his sins, Wu Weiye wrote many poems commemorating loyal officials who died for their country. He also developed an interest in Buddhism and, in his final years, studied Buddhist teachings together with the monk Hongchu, who had been Qian Qianyi’s teacher. But after settling into a new home at a wealthy friend’s estate, he still spent most of his time with poet friends such as Peng Shidu, Wu Hancha, and Chen Qinian—the “Three Talents of Jiangnan.” On the surface, he seemed carefree: “The garden of Benyuan was lush with trees and flowers, possessing the beauty of forests and springs; he drank and composed poetry with friends from all directions, forgetting weariness all day long.” Yet his heart was filled with melancholy, which seemed connected to his failure to make the decision to commit suicide when the Chongzhen Emperor hanged himself in 1644. In 1671, on his deathbed, Wu Weiye asked for paper and brush and wrote:

似乎是为了赎罪,吴伟业写了许多诗作来纪念殉国的忠臣。他还对佛教产生了兴趣,并在生前的最后几年里,同钱谦益的老师弘储和尚一道研习佛学。但他在一个阔绰朋友的庄园里安下新家之后,仍有大部分时间是同彭师度、吴汉槎和陈其年———“江左三才子”———等诗友一起度过的。表面上,他似乎无忧无虑,“贲园花木翳然,有林泉之胜, 与四方士友觞咏其间,终日忘倦。” 但他的内心却充满忧郁,而这种心情看来与1644年崇祯帝自缢时他没能做出自杀的决定有关系。1671年吴伟业在弥留之际要来纸笔,写道:

“My life’s encounters, ten thousand affairs fraught with danger, not a moment without enduring hardship, not a situation without tasting bitterness—truly I am the most bitter person under heaven. After my death, dress me in a monk’s robe, bury me near Dengwei and Lingyan, and erect a round stone before the grave inscribed with: ‘The tomb of the poet Wu Meicun.’ Do not build an ancestral hall, and do not beg for an epitaph from anyone.”

吾一生遭际,万事忧危,无一刻不历艰难,无一境不尝辛苦,实为天下大苦人。吾死后,敛以僧装,葬吾于邓尉灵岩相近,墓前立一圆石,题曰: ‘诗人吴梅村之墓’,勿作祠堂,勿乞铭于人。

He died at the age of 63.

他终年63岁。

In Wu Weiye’s view, the fall of the Ming dynasty was a recurrence of an ancient and romantic archetype, where enchanting courtesans caused statesmen to forget their duties, leading to the nation’s ruin. Thus, the sorrow of national subjugation would stir interest in poetry and enhance its beauty. As Zhuo Erkan, the 17th-century compiler of *Poems of Four Hundred Ming Loyalists*, said: “When the celestial steps shift, heaven’s talent is instead uniquely abundant.”

在吴伟业看来,明朝的覆灭是一种古老而浪漫的原始模式的再现,迷人的名妓使政治家们忘记了自己的职守,从而导致了国家的灭亡。由此,亡国的哀伤便会激起人们对诗的兴趣,并增加其美感。正如17世纪《明末四百家遗民诗》的编者卓尔堪所言:“当天步移易之际,天之生才反独厚”。

Those literati whose poetic talent was inferior to Wu Weiye’s usually turned to writing history. This was both to commemorate the events of 1644 and to bury that history. Huang Zongxi once wrote: “I observe that in this age, no matter who, everyone likes to talk about writing history.” At that time, this generation of Ming loyalists felt a strong sense of shame about their own history; they divided their lives into two distinct phases with 1644 as the boundary. Some, like the famous figure painter Chen Hongshou (1599–1652), changed their names after the fall of the Ming, reflecting their tragic awareness of their past history—what Chen Hongshou called “regret for being late.”

那些诗才不如吴伟业的文人通常都转而写史。这既是为了纪念1644年的事变,也是为了埋葬这段历史。黄宗羲曾写道:“予观当世,不论何人,皆好言作史。”当时,这一代明朝的忠臣对自身的历史有着强烈的羞耻感;他们以1644年为界,将自己的生活划分为截然不同的前后两个阶段。有些人,如著名的人物画家陈洪绶(1599—1652),在明亡之后更改了自己的名字,这反映出他们对自己以往那段历史的悲剧意识———即陈洪绶所谓“悔迟”。

Others, like the historian Zhang Dai, fundamentally changed their way of life. Zhang Dai was a descendant of a prominent family in Shaoxing known for its philanthropy; his great-grandfather was the top scholar in the 1571 imperial examinations. Before 1644, he indulged calmly in the pleasures of handsome servants and beautiful maids, as well as drama, music, fireworks, fine clothes, delicacies, and famous teas. When he served in the small court of Prince Lu, Zhu Yihai, the Qing army conquered Zhejiang, and from then on he abandoned all these pleasures. He gave up his mountain villas, his study, and his rare antiques, retreating into the mountains to compile his famous historical work on the Ming dynasty, *The Hidden Book of the Stone Casket*. At that time, he wrote:

其他人,如历史学家张岱,则从根本上改变了他们的生活方式。张岱是绍兴一家以好善乐施著称的望族的后裔,其曾祖父是1571年的状元。1644年以前,他泰然自若地陶醉于漂亮的僮仆和娇美的侍女,以及戏剧、音乐、烟火、华服、佳肴、名茶等享乐之中。他在鲁王朱以海的小朝廷里供职时,清军征服了浙江,从此他便放弃了所有这些享乐。他舍弃了家里的山庄别墅以及他自己的书斋和稀世古玩,而归隐山林,去编撰他那部记述明朝历史的名著 《石匮藏书》。当时,他写道:

“Taoyan, with the state broken and the family lost, had nowhere to return; he let his hair down and entered the mountains, startled and wild like a savage. … Thinking back, I grew up among the Wang and Xie families, indulging in luxury, and today I suffer this retribution. With a bamboo hat I repay my head, with a straw mat I repay my heels, taking revenge on my former caps and shoes; with a coarse robe I repay my fur coat, with rough linen I repay fine silk, taking revenge on light warmth; with wild vegetables I repay meat, with coarse grain I repay fine rice, taking revenge on sweet delicacies.”

陶菴国破家亡,无所归止,披发入山,駴駴为野人。……因思昔人生长王、谢,颇事豪华,今日罹此果报。以笠报颅,以篑报踵,仇簪履也;以衲报裘, 以苎报絺,仇轻暖也;以藿报肉,以粝报粻,仇甘旨也。

Whether or not anyone actually took action to reform their ways—this remorse was clearly caused by the guilt over the fall of the Ming—all those loyal to the Ming ceased to seek office and changed their lives accordingly. As Huang Zongxi inscribed on his own portrait: “At first I was bound as a partisan, then pointed to as a knight-errant, and finally placed among the Confucian scholars; as a person, I have changed three times up to now. Was it the times that made it so? Or did I have a distant heart?”

无论是否有人有痛改前非的实际行动———这种悔恨之情显然是由对明朝覆灭的负罪感而引起的———所有忠于明朝的人都不再仕进,并相应地改变了他们的生活。正如黄宗羲在自己的画像上所题写的那样:“初锢之为党人,继指之为游侠, 终厕之于儒林,其为人也,盖三变而至今,岂其时为之耶?抑夫之有遐心?”。

Pursuing scholarship was, of course, a way out for these Ming loyalists. “All of them harbored extraordinary talents,” Zhuo Erkan wrote, “but could not manifest them in action, and had no choice but to entrust them to words. Moreover, having cut off worldly affairs, they naturally devoted themselves entirely to learning.”

做学问当然是这些亡明遗臣的一条出路。“类皆胸蕴英奇”,卓尔堪写道,“不克见之行事,不得已而寄之于言。况既谢绝尘事,自毕力学问”。

Scholarship forced these survivors of the anti-Qing resistance to adopt a detached attitude; while history—their history—demanded objective recording. Incidentally, this is why the Kangxi Emperor’s decision to hold a special examination (“Erudite Scholars of Broad Learning”) in 1679, and then invite the successful candidates to participate in compiling the official *History of the Ming*, was an extremely important gesture welcoming these Ming loyalists. Although many of them could not openly participate in the compilation work, they could at least submit their accounts of late Ming history through friends who had accepted the Kangxi Emperor’s invitation. Through this method of compiling the *History of the Ming*, their own historical existence was confirmed, which no other gesture of appreciation could achieve. Thus, all Ming loyalists and Han officials who had surrendered to the Qing formed a common interest in the cause of maintaining Confucian rule.

学问迫使这些抗清运动的幸存者采取一种超然态度;而历史———他们的历史———则要求客观的记述。顺便说一句,这就是康熙帝作出的于1679年举行特科(“博学鸿儒”)考试,然后邀请中试者参与编写官修《明史》的决定,是欢迎这些明朝忠臣的一种极为重要的姿态的缘故。尽管其中许多人不能公开参加编修工作,但他们至少可以通过已接受康熙帝邀请的朋友,将其记述晚明历史的著作呈交上去。通过这种编修《明史》的方式,他们自身的历史存在得到了证实,而这正是其他任何表示赏识的做法所不能达到的,于是,所有明朝忠臣和降清汉官们便在维护儒家统治的事业中形成了共同的利害关系。

In the final stage of their reflection on history, the Ming loyalists also weakened a strong sense of a morality of ambiguity and relativism. As Huang Zongxi pointed out, the greatest impulse of the Ming loyalists arose from the moral and spiritual heroism of the Donglin Movement. But in the brutal power struggles of the late Ming, the Donglin Movement also triggered fierce factional strife, which contributed no less than any other factor to the decline and fall of the Ming. These fierce factional struggles continued during the Southern Ming period, successively splitting the court of Prince Fu in Nanjing and the followers of Prince Gui. In short, the Ming loyalists’ pursuit of distant moral goals led to immediate political chaos. Moreover, while they continued to strongly oppose serving as officials under the Qing, they could also notice that their Han compatriots who collaborated with the Manchus to fulfill their scholar-official mission were gradually achieving concrete results—the latter were actually carrying out the fiscal, legal, and economic reforms that late Ming scholar-officials had wanted but failed to accomplish. So what was the ultimate good they insisted on? Was it to despise the Qing court as Ming loyalists, or that posture of refusing to serve the Qing but ultimately empty and powerless? Would history judge those Han officials who surrendered to the Qing more highly, because they abandoned heroic illusions after the large-scale peasant wars of the 1630s and 1640s, in order to complete the urgent task of rebuilding the empire?

明朝忠臣在对历史进行反思的最后阶段,还削弱了一种关于模棱两可和相对主义的道德观的强烈意识。正像黄宗羲所指出的,明朝忠臣的最大冲动产生于东林党运动的道德和精神英雄主义。但在晚明残酷的权力争夺中,东林党运动也引发了一场激烈的党争,而这对导致明朝衰亡所起的作用决不小于其他任何因素。这些激烈的党争在南明统治时期仍在继续,先后导致了福王的南京朝廷和桂王的追随者的分裂。简言之,明朝忠臣对遥远的道义目标的追求导致了眼前政治的混乱。此外,他们在继续强烈反对入清朝为官的同时,也能注意到那些通过与满族合作来完成其士大夫之使命的汉族同胞正逐渐取得具体的成就,后者实际上正在进行晚明士大夫想进行但未能完成的财政、法律和经济改革。那么,他们所坚持的最终的善是什么呢?是作为明朝忠臣而蔑视清廷,还是那种拒绝为清朝效力但终究空虚无力的姿态?那些降清汉官在17世纪30年代和40年代大规模的农民战争结束之后, 为了完成重建帝国的迫切任务而抛弃了英雄主义的幻想。历史是否会因此而对他们作出更高的评价呢?

These questions were not merely moral perplexities; they also impelled thinkers such as Wang Fuzhi to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of historical dynamics than their predecessors had achieved. Wang Fuzhi’s distinct historical cyclicalism placed each institution within its own specific series of historical development. On the one hand, this meant that old-style restorationism was intellectually untenable: one could not restore the well-field system [12]12 The well-field system (井田制, *jingtian zhi*) was an idealized land tenure system attributed to the Zhou dynasty, in which land was divided into a grid of nine squares, with the central plot cultivated collectively for the lord and the surrounding eight plots farmed by individual households. in an imperial era where the feudal system was already obsolete. On the other hand, Wang Fuzhi’s historical relativism did indeed eliminate the tragic significance of dynastic rise and fall. What he saw was not a conflict between institutions and their times (as Huang Zongxi often believed), or a more naive view of this as a permanent conflict between moral government and tyrants; instead, he pointed out that various political institutions were entirely suited to the specific historical stage in which they were formed. In Wang Fuzhi’s philosophy of history, this concept contained certain evolutionary elements: from primitive society, through the barbarian age, into feudal society, and finally to an age of high civilization. But in terms of the more interesting currents of rational thought of his era that Wang Fuzhi elaborated—currents prevalent during the scholarly formation of the generation of former Ming loyalists—the most illuminating was his functionalism. If institutions were suited to their times, then any social phenomenon was merely an expression or characteristic of its age. In short, moral concepts were not abstract, supra-historical, and transcendental ideas. On the contrary, morality and moral critique had to rely on a profound and comprehensive examination of the necessary connections between persons and events within a specific period. In his commentary on Sima Guang’s *Zizhi Tongjian* [13]13 *Zizhi Tongjian* (资治通鉴, "Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government") is a monumental history of China from 403 BCE to 959 CE, compiled by the Song-dynasty historian Sima Guang (1019–1086)., the famous 11th-century historical work, Wang Fuzhi said:

这些问题不只是道德上的困惑;它们也促使王夫之等思想家对历史动因的复杂性获得了比前哲更加深刻的认识。王夫之的鲜明的历史循环论,将各种制度都放入其自身特有的历史发展系列中。一方面, 这意味着旧式的复古主义在理智上是站不住脚的:人们不可能在封建制已经过时的帝国时代恢复井田制。另一方面,王夫之的历史相对论又确实消除了王朝兴衰的悲剧意味。他所看到的,不是制度与其时代的冲突(就像黄宗羲常常认为的那样),或更为天真地将此视为道德政府与暴君之间的永久冲突;相反,他指出,各种政治制度都完全适合于它们形成时的特定历史阶段。在王夫之的历史哲学中,这种观念包含着一定的进化论因素:从原始社会, 经过野蛮时代,进入封建社会,最后出现高度文明的时代。但就王夫之所阐述的他那个时代的一些更为有趣的理性思潮———这些思潮盛行于前明忠臣这一代人求学的时代———而言,最富启发性的是他的功能主义。如果制度与其时代相适应,那么,任何社会现象都仅仅是其时代的表现或特征。简言之,道德观念不是一些抽象的超历史的和超验的概念。相反,道德与道德批判不得不依赖于对特定时期内人物与事件之间的必然联系的深刻而全面的考察。 在对司马光《资治通鉴》这部11世纪的史学名著的评述中,王夫之说:

“What does ‘comprehensive’ mean? The way of the sovereign lies therein, the state’s policies lie therein, the people’s sentiments lie therein, border defense lies therein, the duty of ministers lies therein, the integrity of ministers lies therein, the conduct of scholars so as not to disgrace themselves lies therein, and the learning that upholds correctness without deviation lies therein. Even when impoverished and isolated, one can thereby cultivate oneself, can thereby instruct others, can thereby know the Way and find joy—hence it is called ‘comprehensive.’”

其曰“通”者,何也?君道在焉,国是在焉,民情在焉,边防在焉,臣谊在焉,臣节在焉,士之行己以无辱者在焉, 学之守正而不陂者在焉。虽扼穷独处, 而可以自淑,可以诲人,可以知道而乐, 故曰“通”也。

Thus, Wang Fuzhi firmly believed that universality was hidden within the multitude of particular connections. Each connection had its own demands and operated according to its own rules.

因而,王夫之坚信,一般性隐存于众多的特殊联系之中。每一种联系都有自身的要求,并按照自己的规则去运作。

Wang Fuzhi’s historical relativism was exceptionally subtle, but his “theory of connections”—his opposition to separating single abstract moral categories from the connections they described—was not unique. In the first few decades after the fall of the Ming dynasty, all serious Confucian moralists were forced to find ways to respond to this immense cultural trauma. Certain Confucian schools had their own intellectual lives, and could well have closely linked authors of the early 17th century with philosophers of the late 17th century. But these were connections at the most fundamental level of moral philosophy. Their surface layer was deeply severed between the late Ming and early Qing, and this rupture itself was the boundary between the Ming and Qing dynasties and the war of conquest. To answer that shocking historical event, many Confucian scholars broke away from the transcendental idealism of “School of Principle” or “School of Mind.” For example, the philosopher Hui Dong (1697–1758) simply described the Neo-Confucian “principle” (*li*) as the interaction between a supernaturally expansive force (manifested as “goodness” or “benevolence”) and a contractive force (manifested as “evil” or “righteousness”). In this way, Zhu Xi’s “principle”—the rational relationships in the cosmos—became closely integrated with matter, and spiritual values were understood as relationships between things.

王夫之的历史相对论异常高妙,但其“联系论”———他反对将单一抽象的道德范畴与他们所描述的联系相分离———并非独一无二。在明朝覆灭后的最初几十年间,所有严肃的道学家都被迫想方设法对这一巨大的文化创伤作出反应。某些儒家学派有他们自己的精神生活,并很可能把17世纪初叶的作者同17世纪后期的哲学家密切联系起来。但这些都是道德哲学最基本层次范围内的联系。其表层在明末与清初之际被深深地切断了,而这种断裂本身又是明清两朝同这场征服战争之间的分界。为了回答那令人震惊的历史事变,许多儒家学者摆脱了“理学”或“心学”的先验唯心论。例如,哲学家惠栋(1697—1758)把新儒学的“理”简单地描述为超自然的扩张力(表现为 “好”或“仁”)与收缩力(表现为“恶”或 “义”)之间的相互作用。这样,朱熹的 “理”———宇宙间的合理关系———便同物质紧密结合起来,精神的价值被理解为事物之间的关系。

Wang Yangming’s concept of innate moral knowledge also lost its persuasiveness. In the view of many Confucian scholars, the moral decline of late Ming society was primarily attributable to Wang Yangming’s illusion—that all people, regardless of their level of learning or moral cultivation, had sufficient moral control to form their own moral authority. Therefore, the opposition to subjective idealism became more intense. Although philosophers such as Huang Zongxi, Li Yong (1627–1705), and Sun Qifeng (1585–1675) made many efforts to reconcile the contradictions between Wang Yangming and his critics, while preserving the good elements of both the theory of innate moral knowledge and the Cheng-Zhu theory of “investigating things to extend knowledge,” the general intellectual trend against Wang could no longer be reversed. In fact, it even overwhelmed the subtle functionalism of Wang Fuzhi and later Hui Dong. When a new scholasticism (largely opposed to all epistemology) attracted the attention of the so-called School of Evidential Learning and the School of Han Learning, the moralists returned to the puritanical Song-dynasty School of Principle.

王阳明的先天良知的概念也失去了说服力。在许多儒家学者看来, 晚明社会世风日下主要应归咎于王阳明的这样一种幻想———即所有人, 不论其学识或道德修养的水平如何, 都有足够的道德控制力以形成他们自己的道德权威。因此,反对主观唯心主义的呼声更为激烈。尽管黄宗羲、李颙(1627—1705) 和孙奇逢(1585—1675)等哲学家为调和王阳明和其批判者之间的矛盾,同时保留先天良知论和程朱“格物致知”论中好的内容,而作了许多努力,但知识界普遍的反王潮流已无法逆转。事实上,它甚至压倒了王夫之及后来的惠栋的精妙的功能主义。当一种新的经院哲学(在很大程度上反对所有认识论)吸引了所谓朴学和汉学学派的注意力时,道学家们便回到了清教徒式的宋代理学中去了。

Because the Cheng-Zhu school was revived in the early Qing and received direct support from emperors such as Kangxi, the values of this school, which had been contested by the events of 1644, were once again validated. Thus, as a remedy for moral relativism, both opponents and supporters of the Qing dynasty sought to restore absolute duties and responsibilities such as loyalty and filial piety. Any inner doubts that Ming loyalists might have harbored were cast aside as their own history gradually came to be exploited and honored by the Qing rulers.

由于程朱学派在清初得以复兴, 并得到康熙等皇帝的直接支持,曾因1644年的事变而引起争论的该学派的价值又一次体现出来。于是,作为一剂矫正道德相对论的良方,清王朝的反对者与支持者都企图恢复像忠、 孝这样的绝对义务与责任。忠于明朝的人可能怀有的一切内心疑虑,都随着他们自己的历史渐渐受到清朝统治者的利用与尊崇,而被抛弃一旁。

This exploitation was not sudden. The Qing rulers had to endure a strong ambivalence toward Ming loyalists, especially those with anti-Manchu sentiments. As steadfast supporters of the Southern Ming government, which until 1662 still had an emperor and an army attempting to recover the Central Plains, these Ming loyalists were regarded as traitors to the Qing. Yet, as exemplars of an abstract virtue that could serve any government conforming to Confucian aspirations, their moral contributions deserved recognition. The Qing emperors and their Han Chinese officials all praised the concept of loyalty in general. While “loyalty” was expressed as absolute devotion to the reigning Son of Heaven, and the Qing monarchs admired such political steadfastness, the Confucian scholar-officials under them also realized that this absolute loyalty should be further abstracted into support for the current dynasty’s Mandate of Heaven. Ming loyalists who died for their dynasty were praised during the Shunzhi reign, and their reputation continued to rise throughout the Qing dynasty. The Kangxi Emperor also praised these loyalists, but it was the Qianlong Emperor, more than a century later, who truly granted them the highest Confucian honors; and interestingly, he did so primarily out of anger toward the long-deceased Qian Qianyi, a Han official who had surrendered to the Qing.

这种利用并非突如其来。清朝统治者对明朝忠臣,特别是有反满思想的人,必须忍受一种强烈的矛盾心理。作为直到1662年仍拥有一个皇帝和一支试图恢复中原的军队的南明政府的坚定支持者,这些明朝的忠臣被视为清朝的叛徒。然而,作为一种能为任何符合儒家愿望的政府服务的抽象美德的典范,这些人在道德上的贡献又应当受到表彰。清朝皇帝及其汉族大臣对一般意义上的忠君观念都持赞美态度。在“忠”被表述为对在位天子的赤胆忠诚,而清朝君主又赞赏这种政治上的坚贞的同时,他们手下的儒生官僚也意识到应使这种绝对的忠进一步抽象化为支持当今王朝的天命。为明朝殉节的忠臣在顺治时期便受到称赞,而且其声名在清朝一代不断上升。康熙帝也赞扬过这些忠臣,但一个多世纪以后真正使他们获得儒士最高荣誉的是乾隆帝; 而十分有趣的是,他主要是出于对早已去逝的降清汉官钱谦益的愤怒才这样做的。

However, by the time Ming loyalists received that concrete recognition, their spirit of sacrifice for the Ming had long been forgotten. Only after Neo-Confucian loyalty was no longer exclusively tied to the Ming cause and began to be linked to the fate of the Qing could the Qing government advocate this virtue without ambivalence, thereby completing its transformation from a foreign military regime into a legitimate monarch holding the “Mandate of Heaven” to rule the realm. This process—whereby loyalty to the Qing gradually outweighed loyalty to the Ming—was finally completed during the Revolt of the Three Feudatories [14]14 The Revolt of the Three Feudatories (三藩之乱, *Sanfan zhi luan*, 1673–1681) was a rebellion of three Han Chinese military governors in southern China against the Qing central government, led by Wu Sangui, Shang Kexi, and Geng Jimao. in 1673.

然而,当明朝忠臣得到那种具体褒奖的时候,他们为明朝献身的精神早已被人们淡忘了。只是在新儒学的忠君思想不再专属于明朝的事业而开始与清朝的命运相联之后, 清朝政府才能毫无矛盾心理地倡导这种美德,从而实现其自身从一个异族军事政权向一个握有统治天下之“天命”的合法君主的转变。这一过程———对清朝的忠逐渐压倒对明朝的忠——最终完成于1673年“三藩之乱”期间。