?

Just like Akbar's presiding role in IK, Kangxi?endeavorsto reverse the relationship between the tutor and the student. As his understanding of Confucianism advances, the emperor questions his tutor's opinions more frequently and plays a conducive role in?Rijiang?lecture. He adds the section of?Fujiang?(reviewing lecture) after the regular?Rijiang?daily lecture. "Now the tutor gives the lesson, but I don't give my opinion. If this form becomes a routine, it will be detrimental to scholarship.?So?from now on, I will give a reviewing lecture after the tutor finishes their lesson."?In?Fujiang?section, the emperor becomes the presenter, giving judgments on the tutor's view. In the ceremonial?Jingyan?lecture, Kangxi says, "All officials attend?Jingyan.?The classic interpreted in?Jingyan?shall be reverenced by both the emperor and the officials.?So?this lecture shall also discipline the officials and inspire the officials to reflect himself."?Jingyan?is traditionally a lecture that aims to educate the emperor. Now Kangxi turns it into a course disciplining all officials.?

?

The most dramatic event of constructing his intellectual authority is the movement of distinguishing betweenZhen?Daoxue?(true scholarship) and?Jia?Daoxue?(fake?scholarship). In 1700, Kangxi's military campaign against?Gederdan?reached its toughest moment. Kangxi holds a Literature exam for all officials in the court. The title of this exam is how to distinguish the true and fake scholarship. Kangxi dismissed all answers of his officials and fiercely criticized their discrepancies between words and actions.?It reminds people of Akbar's critiques on?the sham of Ulema when he found their tax evasion.?Kangxi scolds Han officials for their intellectual incapacities and hypocrisy in political affairs. He criticizes?Weixiangji"Due to the conflict with?Suoetu?(a high-rank Manchu official), when the earthquake happened in Kangxi 18th year,?Weixiangji?reported to me to execute?Suoetu. (Traditionally, an earthquake is an ominous sign,?Weixiangji?interpreted it as a warning of the god to execute?Suoetu.) How can a Confucianism intellectual be so spiteful to others."?For?Xionglvci, the first tutor of Kangxi, Kangxi criticizes him for "seeking for the?undeserved reputation and lacking capacity in administrative affairs."?In these critiques, Kangxi deconstructs the intellectual supremacy of Han officials. Although they are the tutors in?Rijiang's?lecture, they can't practice the Confucianism doctrines in political affairs.?

?

After undermining the influence of Han officials, Kangxi starts to construct his universal theory of kingship. In traditional Confucianism theory, there is always a division between?Daotong?(the sovereignty of universal truth) and?Zhitong?(the sovereignty of secular governance). Only the legendary ancient kings united these two sovereignties. Since the age of Confucianism, these two sovereignties split due to the collapse of the ideal order. Confucianism intellectuals possess?Daotonguniversal truth, and emperors possess?Zhitong?secular?governance. In Kangxi's "Royal praise of Confucianism," he says, "Yao shun?yu?wen tang (legendary kings), are supreme kings who unite the identities of ruler and tutor. They are the saints practicing the truth. Confucian couldn't attain this supremacy, so?they?only focused on scholarship to explain the truth. He is the saint clarifying the truth."?In Kangxi's opinion, Confucian just possess one sovereignty in scholarship. Although he is the most celebrated saint in Confucianism, he is still imperfect compared?to?ancient legendary kings.

?

In contrast, Kangxi proposes his own perspective about?Zhitong?and?Daotong. "I am the saint king chosen by the god. I shall be both the ruler and the tutor…inherit?Daotong?truth which has passed for ten thousand generations, undertake?Zhitong?governance, which has passed for ten thousand generations.?Kangxi regards himself as the new saint king who reunites these two sovereignties after the two-thousand-year split.?

?

Difference and Similarity in Charisma

?

The difference between Kangxi and Akbar in constructing personal charisma and universal kingship is that, for Akbar, the personal connection between the emperor and his disciples is pivotal. In the ceremony of entering Din. The?emperor hugs new disciples. He is not only a political authority but also a moral authority,"?Just as Abul?Fazl's?explanation of Su illustrates. It is not only a political prospect of pluralism peace. It is also a personal ideal to reach spiritual tranquility.?"I came from the womb of conceit to the land of supplication and became a front-sitter in the reposeful hall of universal peace."?Individual morality is the main content of Din doctrines, and the emperor imposes strict regulations on the private life of disciples. When Akbar found the homosexual relationship between an official and a young man, he scolded that,?The?man who,?by submitting himself to desire and the society of wicked flatters,?is overpowered by the lord of lust and passion becomes the mark of various disgraces."?When he found this focus on the inner self enables the emperor to engage with the disciples deeper and construct personal connections with them. The emotional devotion to the emperor and the truth he represents, rather than rational obedience, is the core of Akbar's?kingship.

?

In contrast, Kangxi's theory of kingship is still in the context of Confucianism. The unity between?Zhitong?and?Daotong?is not a pioneering idea in Confucianism texts. It has been applied to praise the ancient legendary kings for centuries. Kangxi's innovation is just to apply this concept to an alive ruler. It is similar to Akbar's decree of infallibility, declaring the multi-authority of the emperor in both spiritual and political affairs. However, unlike Akbar, Kangxi doesn't go further to construct a completely new "religion." His sayings on true and false?Daoxue?is?still on political affairs rather than personal ethnicity and spiritual elevation. Unlike Akbar's instructions on private morality,?Kangxi mainly focuses on loyalty in politics and hardly intervenes?in?officials'personal affairs.?

?

Accordingly,?Kangxi doesn't build a close connection with his courtiers. He never adapts physical contact on any occasion. In the?entire?Qing dynasty, the ritual of hug is only recorded in the meeting between Huang?taiji?and the surrounded Ming general Zu?dashou.?This ritual is aimed to demonstrate the brotherhood and?intimacy between?the emperor and his?cooperators. As the emperor queues?three vassals?by military campaign and undermines Manchu aristocrats through political reformation, this ritual is abandoned, and a more remote and?sublime?authority is constructed. Akbar shows himself on the balcony every morning and celebrates Diwali with people in the capital.?In contrast, Kangxi's life in the forbidden city and summer palace is?completely?unapproachable?to?citizens. The Spring festival celebration is attended by only the royal family and influential courtiers.

?

Both Kangxi and?Akbar illustrate a universalism prospect. All division between intellectual and political affairs, conquering people and conquered people, dominant group and the marginal group is canceled or concealed. It entails equalitarianism to support the vulnerable group like Han and Hindu people and undermines the strong groups like?Turian?and Manchu people. By keeping this balance, the emperor ensures that none of these groups can be strong enough to threaten his authority.?

?

In this pluralism and equalitarianism?condition, the emperor can construct universalism kingship by appointing himself as the guarantor of diversity and equality. Both secular and intellectual?authorites?arecombined and exclusively occupied by the emperor.?Moreover, the?emperor has the absolute authority to judge all religious and intellectual problems.?Not only the ruler's?secular?function of?sustaining peace, but also?his?transcendental divinity of?reforming the world?support the?charismatic?kingship.?No group can intervene the process of constructing divinity. The emperor can freely rewrite the genealogy of the empire and the political theology of his rule without the endorsement of others.?

??

Conclusion

?

Both Kangxi and Akbar stand at a cross. On the one hand,?the?construction?new settled empire is on the way. They?endeavor?to build an?universalkingship?which is tightly bonded with their own charisma. On the other hand, as the new-brith?empires?haven’t?stabilized their conquered?territory, the ruthless absolutism is still not a practical option.?So?they chose a monotheism built on pluralism, rather than a monotheism antagonistic to pluralism.?

?

Their trust on diverse groups?vary?in different affairs. Kangxi is completely devoted to Non-Confucianism theories, but he meticulously?control?the Han influence in the military system and social affairs. Akbar relies more on Hindu?Mansabdars?in conquests and local governance, but he never totally accepts Hinduism theology.?Howeverthese trust and suspicion are not the evidence of their “concealed discrimination” on other ethnicities. The narratives regarding them as the faithful guard of either local Han/Hindus or traditional ruling Manchu/Central Asian Muslims, can not reflect the whole image of their universalism kingship.

?

Their universalism kingship?are?also developed in different ways. Akbar’s Charisma?derives?from his spiritual leadership in religious innovation and personal connection with royal relatives and disciples. Kangxi’s majesty depends more on the re-interpretation of neo-Confucianism and the?awe-inspiring distance between the ruler?and subjects. However, they share the common?goal of?building?a transcendental authority upon balancing diverse groups?and constructing?a new imperial identity?based on the recognition to the emperor himself rather than competing ethnicities. The universal kingship becomes the adhesive of the empire. The monotheistic and charismatic authority of the emperor dismantles the boundaries between Hindus and Muslims,?Menchu?and Han, Divine and Secular, culture and politic. All these divisions are trivial, compared with?the universal peace and prosperity created by the?emperor.?

?

However, this?mutual-support?between pluralism culture and monotheism kingship is not eternal. It entails the emperor’s personal charisma and political skills to sustain the balance between different groups. It also depends on an unwritten contract based on the mutual trust between the empire and diverse groups. The empire promises protection, respect and autonomy, and all groups guarantee conformity,?support and loyalty. When the Charismatic emperor passed away, and a more dominant emperor resolves to construct a more absolutism empire, the unwritten contract may be broken and the cooperation between plural groups and monotheism kingship collapse. In fact, under the reign of both Aurangzeb and Qianlong, more conservative cultural policies that limited?Hindus and Hans’ autonomy and influence are implemented.?This exclusiveness?may build a stronger absolutism kingship abandoning the compromise of corporatism, but?it?also may?undermine people’s recognition on the homogenous identity?asimperial subjects?and destroy?the fundamental inclusiveness of the?multi-ethnicity empires.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

Bibliography

?

1.?Primary Resource

?

Abul?Fazl, Akbar-nama,?Vol?1,2,3. tr. Henry Beveridge. Calcutta: The Royal Asiatic Society.

?

The factual record of Emperor Ren. Vol 71, 111, 120, 163, Beijing:?Zhonghua?shuju.?

?

The record of Kangxi’s daily life, Vol 1, Beijing:?Zhonghua?shuju.?

?

The royal written instructions of Kangxi, Beijing, Hua?qiao?press.

?

?

2.?Secondary Resource

?

Ali, M. Athar, and M. Akhtar Ali. “SULHI KUL AND THE RELIGIOUS IDEAS OF AKBAR.”?Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 41, 1980.

?

Aziz Ahmad, ‘Part two: Muslim India in relation to Hindu India (710-1830)’,?Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment, Oxford, 1964.

?

Chandra, Satish, et al. “Akbar and His Age: A Symposium.” Social Scientist, vol. 20, 1992, pp. 61–72.

?

Chandra, Satish. ?History of Medieval India. New Delhi: Orient?Longma.

?

Choudhury, M. L. Roy. “AKBAR (In the Light of the ‘Din-i-Ilahi’).” Proceedings of?

the Indian History Congress 3, 1939: 1073–97.

?

Corradini, Piero. “The Legitimization of the Qing Dynasty.” Central Asiatic Journal 46, no. 1, 2002, 112–27.?

?

Crossley, Pamela Kyle. “A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology.” California: University of California Press, 2002.

?

David Gilmartin & Bruce B. Lawrence (eds),?Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in?Islamicate?South Asia, Delhi, 2003.

?

David N. Lorenzen (ed.),?Religious Movements in South Asia,?600-1800, New Delhi, 2004.

?

E er Tai, The court history of the dynasty. Beijing, Beijing?guji?press, 1994.?

?

Garbe, Richard. “AKBAR, EMPEROR OF INDIA. A PICTURE OF LIFE AND?

CUSTOMS FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.”?The Monist, vol. 19, no. 2.?

?

Garbe, Richard. “AKBAR, EMPEROR OF INDIA. A PICTURE OF LIFE AND CUSTOMS FROM THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.” The Monist 19, no. 2, 1909: 161–201.?

?

GONG,?Shuduo, and Huang?Deyuan. “Characteristics of?Lixue?in Qing Dynasty.” Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 2, no. 1, Brill, 2007, pp. 1–24,

?

Ira M. Lapidus, ‘State and religion in Islamic societies’,?Past & Present?151, 1996.

?

Ira?Mukhoty. “Akbar. The Great Mughal”, Aleph Book Company.?2020.?

?

?

Jiang?Xiaoli. The analysis of Shaman Reformation in early Qing.?Tonghua?shifan?xueyuan?xuebao, 2008 (01): p67-69.

?

Jonathan Dermot Spence, “Ts?ao?Yin and the?K?ang-hsiEmperor: Bondservant and Master.” Yale University Press, 1988.

?

Jonathan Dermot Spence.?Emperor of China: Self-Portrait of?K'ang-His. California: University of California Press. 1974.

?

Khan,?Iqtidar?Alam. “Tracing Sources of Principles of Mughal Governance: A Critique of Recent Historiography.” Social Scientist 37, no. 5/6 (2009): 45–54.?

?

Kinra, Rajeev. “Revisiting the History and Historiography of Mughal Pluralism.” ReOrient 5, no. 2 (2020): 137–82.?

?

Li?Huijuan, The comparison of cultural policies during Kangxi,?Yongzheng?and Qianlong’s reign. Nanjing?shifanUniversity, 2013.?

?

Liu?Fangling, The construction of the?Emperor’s??Daotong?image in the early Qing dynasty. Nankai University,?

?

Liuxi,?How?dose?the royal authority assimilate Neo-Confucianism?Daotong, taking the emperor Kangxi’s unity of?Zhitong?and?Daotong?as an instance. Hebei?Xuekan, 2017, 202-207.

?

Luoxiaoliang, The analysis between the cultural policies to Han people and the political centralization in the middle period of Kangxi’s reign. Huazhong university?xubao, 2013, p139-147.

?

Monserrate,?Anonio, The commentary of Father?Monserrate,S.?J., On his Journey to the court of Akbar. London: Oxford University Press, 1922, p50-51.

?

Muzaffar?Alam, ‘Shari?a?and governance in the Indo-Islamic context’, in David?

?

Gilmartin & Bruce B. Lawrence (eds),?Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in?IslamicateSouth?Asia(Gainesville, FL, 2000), 216-245 [chap. 9]

?

Nizami, Khaliq Ahmad.?Akbar & religion. Delhi, 1989. The Monist, vol. 19, no. 2, 1909, pp. 161–201.

?

Rajeev?Kinra. Revisiting the History and Historiography of Mughal Pluralism.?ReOrient. Vol. 5(2):137-182.

?

Rezavi?SAN. Religious Disputations and Imperial Ideology: The Purpose and?Location of Akbar’s?Ibadatkhana. Studies in History. 2008;24(2):195-209.

?

Richards, J.?The Mughal Empire?(The New Cambridge History of India). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993.?

Ruby?Lal.“Settled, Sacred and All-Powerful: Making of New Genealogies and Traditions of Empire under Akbar.”Economic and Political Weekly 36, no. 11, 2001: 941-58.?

?

S.?Inayet. A. Zaidi. “Akbar’s Relations with Rajput Chiefs and Their Role in the Expansion of the Empire.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 67, 2006: 331–49.

?

Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,?Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Agra, 1965.

?

Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,?Religious and Intellectual History of the Muslims in Akbar’s Reign with Special Reference to?Abu’l?Fazl, New Delhi, 1975.

?

Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi,?Shāh?Walī-Allāh?and his Times: A Study of Eighteenth Century?Islām, Politics and Society in India, Canberra, 1980.

?

Shivram,?Balkrishan. “MUGHAL COURT RITUALS: THE SYMBOLISM OF IMPERIAL AUTHORITY DURING AKBAR’S REIGN.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 67 (2006): 331–49.

?

Truschke,?Audrey.“Culture?of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court.” Columbia?

University Press, 2016. P142-65.

?

Wang Hui, the research on the changing relationship between the royal authority and?Menchu?aristocrats in the age of Kangxi.?Yalvjiang, 2019, p98-99.

?

Wu, Silas H. L., Communication and Imperial Control in China: Evolution of the Palace Memorial System, 1693–1735, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970.

?

Zhang Ying, The collection of?Wenduan. Vol 41.?

?

Zhu?jinpu, the research on the Southern Study in the age of?Kangxi.?Gugong?bowuyuan?yuankan, 1990: 27-38.?

?