Tifayifu

Tifayifu (Chinese: 剃发易服; lit. 'shaving hair and changing costume') is an edict policy which took place in the Qing dynasty in 1645 when Han Chinese people (more specifically adult living men, who did not fall in the stipulated exceptions[1]: 3, 6 ) were forced to follow Manchu hairstyle and clothing.[2][3] In 1644, on the first day when the Manchu penetrated the Great Wall of China through the Shanhai pass, the Manchu rulers ordered the surrendering Han Chinese population to shave their heads; however, this policy came to a halt just a month later due to the intense resistance from the Han Chinese near Beijing.[1]: 218–219  It is only after the Manchu recaptured Nanjing, the southern capital, in 1645 that the policy resumed and was enforced severely.[1]: 218–219  Within one year after entering China proper, the Qing rulers demanded that men among their defeated subjects had to adopt Manchu hairstyle or face execution.[4]: 60 

The law was strongly opposed by the Han Chinese, especially those who were part of the late Ming scholars and literati class.[3] Even 10 years after the tifayifu edict implementation, resistance to the hair cutting and changing clothing to Manchu style still occurred.[3] In the Kangxi period, a large number of ordinary people still followed the clothing and hairstyle of the Ming dynasty, except for the officials and military generals who had to wear the Manchu queue and uniforms.[3] With time, Han Chinese men eventually voluntarily adopted Manchu-style clothing, such as changshan and magua, over time, and by the late Qing, officials, scholars, and many commoners wore Manchu-style clothing.[4]: 61 

Cultural significance

Hairstyle

Wearing the queue (bianzi) was traditionally a Manchurian hairstyle, which was itself a variant of northern tribes' hairstyle, including the Jurchen.[4]: 60  It differed from the way Han Chinese styled their hair; the Han Chinese kept long hair with all their hair grown over their head and was coiled into a topknot, held into place by Chinese headwear.[4]: 60  Wearing the queue was unpopular among the Chinese and was met with resistance as shaving the head was against the "system of rites and music" of ancient China and violated the Confucian beliefs of not harming the body which was bestowed by one's parents[4]: 60  as indicated in the Xiaojing, "Our bodies - to every hair and bit of skin - are received by us from our parents, and we must not presume to injure or wound them. This is the beginning of filial piety".[5] Moreover, the traditional hairstyle of the Han Chinese were a fundamental aspect of their cultural identity.[6] The Qing rulers however perceived the queue as a visible of symbol of submission,[6] refusing to withdraw or modify the regulation.[4]: 60 

Differences between Manchu and Han Chinese clothing
Main article: Hanfu

Manchu and Han Chinese clothing (Hanfu, including those worn in the Ming dynasty) differed from each other,[1]: 6  the broad and general description of such differences in how Ming dynasty clothing is typically associated with sedentary characteristics such as being loose, "ample, flowing robes" with wide and long-sleeves which restricted movement and with "slippers with upturned toes" while the Manchu clothing were "boots, trousers and functional riding coats of coat of nomadic horsemen" allowing physical mobility.[7]: 39–40 

Manchu coats were close fitting and had slashed openings on the four sides which allowed greater ease of movements when horse-riding; the sleeves were long and tight ending in horse-hoof shape which were designed to protects the hands from the wind; trousers were worn by both Manchu men and women, and their boots had rigid soles which facilitated mounted archery.[7]: 39–40 

Manchu's refusal to adopt Chinese clothing

Manchu clothing were associated with martial vigour. When Hong Taiji drew up the dressing code after 1636, he made a direct association between the decline of the Liao, Jin and Yuan dynasties (all non-Han Chinese regimes) with the adoption of Hanfu and the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle.[7]: 40  Hong Taijji therefore reminded the Banner princes and Manchu officials (in 1635 and in 1637) that the conquests by the Manchu were through riding and archery, and thus the wide and brood-sleeved clothing of the Ming dynasty were entirely unsuitable to the Manchu lifestyle and worried that his descendant would adopt Han Chinese customs while forgetting the sources of their greatness; therefore, the Manchu strongly rejected the adoption of Ming dynasty court clothing.[7]: 40  It is recorded that Hong Taiji said in 1636:[8]: 157 

Previously, the wise men . . . would often advise me [Hong Taiji] to abandon our Manchu clothing and hats for Chinese clothing and hats, and to adopt the Chinese way. I refused. They would not accept my reasons. Now, here, I want to give myself as an example. If those of us gathered here wore wide-sleeved clothing, how would we be able to stand with a quiver of arrows on the right side and a bow on the left? How could we take in hand the advance of a brave peregrine falcon [i.e., practice falconry]? If we give up archery and horsemanship, then we can certainly wear wide-sleeved clothing. But then how are we any different from those depraved people who eat meat cut by others

— Macabe Keliher, The Board of Rites and the Making of Qing China, p. 157

Hong Taiji was again cited by the Emperor Qianlong when urging his descendants to maintain the wearing of Manchu dress.[7]: 40 

Symbol of submission

Along with the adoption of the queue, the abandonment of traditional Hanfu through the adoption of Manchu clothing was also perceived as a symbol of submission by the Manchu.[1]: 6 [9]: 83  However, the early Qing court did not allow Han Chinese men to wear all forms of Manchu items as they prohibited Chinese men from wearing certain specific Manchu items, such as clothing made of fur.[1]: 6 

Women's fashion ban

The early Qing court also forbid Manchu women from dressing themselves in Han Chinese women's fashion,[1]: 6  which included the wearing of Ming-style clothing with wide sleeves and from foot-binding (in 1638 by Hong Taiji for the Manchu women, in 1645 by Emperor Shunzhi and in 1662 and 1664 for both Han Chinese and Manchu; the ban on foot-binding for Han Chinese was eventually abandoned[9]: 83 ).[7]: 41  Manchu women were also forbidden wearing a single earring (a Han Chinese custom) and had to wear three earrings in one ear instead (Manchu custom).[7]: 41 

However, from the middle of the 18th century, the women dress code were being infringed as it is recorded that Emperor Qianlong stated that "there were girls who emulated Han Chinese clothing and jewelry. This is truly not the Manchu custom" when he inspected the marriage draft.[7]: 41  The dress code continued to be infringed as recorded in 1775 (when bondservant daughters were observed wearing one earring instead of 3 in one ear), in 1804 (when 19 girls came up with bound feet), in 1839 (when an imperial edict was decreed punishing fathers of young girls who presented themselves for imperial inspection wearing Chinese-style upper garment with wide sleeves).[7]: 41 

Therefore, although Manchu clothing was prevalent and Hanfu was forbidden in daily life, Hanfu-style clothing did not cease existing in society.[1]: 6 

Tifayifu Exemptions

In order to stabilize its rule and integrate the cultural system of the Han Chinese, the Qing dynasty court adopted a mitigation policy, which consisted of 10 exemptions to the tifayifu policy.[10] This policy was proposed by Jin Zijun (金之俊), a Han Chinese official of the Ming dynasty who surrendered to Qing dynasty, wherein the specifics of those exemptions were made with ten paired of lines:[1]: 220 [10]

1. Men had to shave and braid their hair, and wear Manchu clothes, while women still wore the original hairstyle and Han-style clothes,

2. During his life, he had to wear Manchu clothes, and after his death, he could wear Han-style clothes,

3. As for the affairs of the underworld, such as doing Buddhist rites, they are still handled according to the traditional Buddhist and Taoist customs of the Han nationality, and there is no need to follow the customs of the Manchu people,

4. The official must wear the Qing official uniform, but the slave still wear the Ming clothing,

5. When a child is young, he need not obey, but when he is grown up, he must follow the rules of Manchu,

6. Ordinary people had to wear Manchu clothes and shave their hair and wear braids. Monks will be allowed to wear Ming - and Han-style clothes

7. Prostitutes wore the clothes required by the Qing court, while actors were free to wear other clothes due to the role of the ancients

8. The official management must follow the system of the Qing dynasty, while the marriage ceremony should keep the old system of the Han people

9. The state title was changed from Ming dynasty to Qing dynasty, but the official title names remain

10. Taxes and official services should follow the Manchu system, while the language remain in Chinese

— Su Wenhao, Study on the Inheritance and Cultural Creation of Manchu Qipao Culture

Therefore, the tifayifu policy mainly applied to adult men, and the people who were generally exempted from the tifayifu policy were: Han Chinese women, Han Chinese children, Buddhist and, Taoist monks, deceased Han Chinese men, and performers in Chinese theatres,[1]: 6–7 

Consequences of tifayifu edict

Executions and progressive adoption of Manchu-style clothing by men

Voicing disapproval to the queue order and urging to the return of Chinese fashion (Ming-style) lead to the execution of Chen Mingxia (a former Ming dynasty official) for treason in 1654 by the Shunzi emperor;[4]: 60  Chen Mingxia suggested that the Qing dynasty court should adopt Ming-style clothing "in order to bring peace to the empire".[7]: 40  It also lead to the execution of Liu Zhenyu during the Qianlong era for urging the clothing to be changed to what is presumed to Ming-style fashion; however, during this period, only the scholar-official elite were required to wear Manchu style and not the entire male population, so the great majority of men were allowed to dressed in Ming-style fashion.[4]: 61  Han Chinese men eventually voluntarily adopted Manchu-style clothing, such as changshan and magua, over time, and by the late Qing, officials, scholars, and many commoners wore Manchu-style clothing.[4]: 61 

Resistance and massacres

The Tifayifu policy lead to outrage and resistance, especially in central and south China, when the unpopular policy united educated men and peasants together in resistance.[7]: 40  In 1645, during military campaigns in south China, the Manchu troops were ordered to kill any Chinese who refused to shave his head.[9]: 83  The Tifayifu policy lead to great bloodshed and resentment among the Chinese.[9]: 83 

It also led to resentment amongst the Han Chinese and also out of loyalty for the Ming dynasty, some areas in China fought back against the Manchu which provoked the Qing dynasty forced to massacre entire populations.[6] There was accounts of such massacres perpetuated by Qing soldiers at southern cities, such as Yangzhou, Jiading, and Jiangyin, where tens of thousands of people were deliberately and brutally killed.[6] It was Han Chinese defectors who carried out massacres against people refusing to wear the queue.

Li Chengdong, a Han Chinese general who had served the Ming but defected to the Qing,[11] ordered troops to carry out three separate massacres in the city of Jiading within a month, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. The three massacres at Jiading District are some of the most infamous.

The third massacre (i.e. the Yangzhou massacre) left few survivors.[12] The Yanzhou massacre has an estimated death tolls in the tens or even hundreds of thousands.[12]

In June 1645, news that men were required to adopt Manchu hairstyle reached the city of Jiangyin.[13] The city of Jiangyin held out against about 10,000 Qing troops for 83 days; when the city wall was finally breached on October 9, 1645, the Qing army, led by the Han Chinese Ming defector, General Liu Liangzuo (劉良佐), who had been ordered to "fill the city with corpses before you sheathe your swords," massacred the entire population, killing between 74,000 and 100,000 people.[14] Although General Liu proclaimed that only adult men were to be executed, Liu's soldiers indiscriminately incinerated women and children in their houses.[14] Of the initial population estimated to be about 100,000, there were only 53 reported survivors following the Jiayin massacre.[14]

Han Chinese soldiers in 1645 under Han General Hong Chengchou forced the queue on the people of Jiangnan while Han people were initially paid silver to wear the queue in Fuzhou when it was first implemented.[15][16]

See also

References
  1. Wang, Guojun (2020). Staging personhood : costuming in early Qing drama. New York. ISBN 978-0-231-54957-8. OCLC 1129398697.
  2. Wang, Yi (2019-09-19). "Contesting the past on the Chinese Internet: Han-centrism and mnemonic practices". Memory Studies. 15 (2): 304–317. doi:10.1177/1750698019875996. ISSN 1750-6980.
  3. Wang, Anita Xiaoming (2018). "The Idealised Lives of Women: Visions of Beauty in Chinese Popular Prints of the Qing Dynasty". Arts Asiatiques. 73: 61–80. doi:10.2307/26585538. ISSN 0004-3958.
  4. Rhoads, Edward J. M. (2000). Manchus & Han : ethnic relations and political power in late Qing and early republican China, 1861-1928. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-80412-5. OCLC 774282702.
  5. "Xiao Jing : The Scope and Meaning of the Treatise - Chinese Text Project". ctext.org (in Chinese (Taiwan)). Retrieved 2022-03-08.
  6. Smith, Richard J. (2015). The Qing Dynasty and traditional Chinese culture. Lanham. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-4422-2192-5. OCLC 898910891.
  7. Rawski, Evelyn Sakakida (1998). The last emperors : a social history of Qing imperial institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92679-0. OCLC 43476703.
  8. Keliher, Macabe (2020). The Board of Rites and the making of Qing China. Oakland, California. ISBN 978-0-520-97176-9. OCLC 1090283580.
  9. Chang, Chun-shu (1998). Redefining history : ghosts, spirits, and human society in Pʻu Sung-ling's world, 1640-1715. Shelley Hsueh-lun Chang. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-10822-0. OCLC 37935113.
  10. Su, Wenhao (2019). "Study on the Inheritance and Cultural Creation of Manchu Qipao Culture". Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. Atlantis Press. 368: 208–211. doi:10.2991/icassee-19.2019.41. ISBN 978-94-6252-837-6.
  11. Faure, David (2007). Emperor and ancestor : state and lineage in South China. David Faure. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-4356-0883-2. OCLC 290565472.
  12. Chinese civilization : a sourcebook. Patricia Buckley Ebrey (Second edition, revised and expanded ed.). New York. 1993. pp. 271–279. ISBN 0-02-908752-X. OCLC 27226697.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  13. Roberts, John A. G. (2011). History of China (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 138. ISBN 978-0-230-24984-4. OCLC 930059261.
  14. Conflict and control in late Imperial China. Frederic E. Wakeman, Carolyn Grant, Berkeley. Center for Chinese Studies University of California, American Council of Learned Societies. Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1975. pp. 82–83. ISBN 0-520-02597-0. OCLC 2422200.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  15. Godley, Michael R. (September 2011). "The End of the Queue: Hair as Symbol in Chinese History". China Heritage Quarterly. China Heritage Project, ANU College of Asia & the Pacific (CAP), The Australian National University (27). ISSN 1833-8461.
  16. Justus Doolittle (1876). Social Life of the Chinese: With Some Account of Their Religious, Governmental, Educational, and Business Customs and Opinions. With Special But Not Exclusive Reference to Fuhchau. Harpers. pp. 242–.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.