Liáo shǐ 遼史
The History of the Liáo by 托克托 (Toqto’a / Tuòtuō, 1314–1356) et al., by imperial commission of Yuán Shùndì; Qing collation notes by 周長發 (Zhōu Chángfā).
About the work
The twenty-first of the Twenty-Four Histories, in 116 juǎn (the catalog meta gives 115; the discrepancy reflects different ways of counting the appendix Guóyǔ jiě 國語解, 1 juǎn). The breakdown is 30 jì, 31 zhì, 8 biǎo, 46 lièzhuàn, plus 1 juǎn of Guóyǔ jiě. Covers the Khitan Liáo dynasty (907–1125) — the great northern non-Hàn dynasty that ruled the Sixteen Prefectures of YānYún, the Mongolian steppe, Manchuria, and northern Korea before being destroyed by the Jurchen Jīn. Compiled at the Yuán court under Toqto’a in Zhìzhèng 3 (1343), 4th month, with completion in Zhìzhèng 4 (1344), 3rd month — only one year. Working compilers included Liáo writers Yēlǜ Yǎn 耶律儼 and Chén Dàrén 陳大任 (their texts were the principal sources) and Yuán scholars Zhāng Qǐyán 張起巖, Hú Sānshěng 胡三省, Lǚ Sīchéng 呂思誠 etc.
Tiyao
By Toqto’a et al. by imperial commission of the Yuán. In Zhìzhèng 3, 4th month, an edict to Confucian scholars to compile separately; in Zhìzhèng 4, 3rd month, the work was complete. Běnjì 30 juǎn, zhì 31 juǎn, biǎo 8 juǎn, lièzhuàn 46 juǎn, Guóyǔ jiě 1 juǎn. Liáo regulations on writing were severe: any subject’s work could only be published within the borders; any text reaching neighbouring states meant the death penalty (per Shěn Kuò’s Mèngxī bǐtán, the Sēng Xíngjūn Lóngkān shǒujìng note). The intent was to keep the state’s strengths and weaknesses from the enemy. So nothing was widely transmitted. After the Five Capitals’ war-fires, the old material was scattered to nothing, perished without remainder. Per Yuán Jué’s discussion of the Sān shǐ compilation: “Sū Tiānjué’s 蘇天爵 Sān shǐ zhìyí shows that the materials that could be made the basis of a Liáo shǐ are very few.” Hence the working materials were limited to two texts — Yēlǜ Yǎn’s and Chén Dàrén’s — narrow in scope; finished in one year, no leisure for broad search; carelessly drafted, in fact much sketchy.
(The tíyào notes the work’s structural weaknesses: extensive duplication between jì, zhì, biǎo, and lièzhuàn — annual progresses recorded in jì and again as Yóuxìng biǎo 遊幸表; tribal divisions in Yíngwèi zhì 營衛志 and again as Bùzú biǎo 部族表; vassal-state tribute in jì and again as Shǔguó biǎo 屬國表; the events of Yìzōng’s flight to Tang and Zhāngsù’s struggle for the throne repeatedly in jì, zhì, biǎo, and zhuàn. Wénxué contains only six men but is divided into two juǎn; Língguān and Huànguān sections force three persons to fill out a chapter. — These repetitions and fragmentations the historiographers were not unaware of; faced with the cooking-without-rice predicament, they had no choice but to slice and pad to fill out the juǎn count.)
But Liáo’s own materials were thin; Sòng records have quite a bit. Wáng Chēng’s Dōngdū shì lüè says Liáo Tàizōng founded with the title Dà Liáo; Shèngzōng on accession changed Dà Liáo to Dà Qìdānguó 大契丹國; Dàozōng Xiányōng 2 (1066) again changed to Dà Liáo. Examining the Chóngxī 重熙 16 (1047) Sākyamuni Buddha relic iron-pagoda inscription stone — still standing today at Gǔěrbǎn Sūbāěrhàn (modern Inner Mongolia) — its text reads “Dà Qìdānguó Xīngzhōngfǔ Chóngxī 15-nián bǐngxūsuì” — matches Wáng Chēng. But this work fails to record the change. So on the matter of national name, even details remain unclear.
(The tíyào gives further examples of unrecorded matters: Hóng Zūn’s Quánzhì 泉志 cites Lǐ Jìxīng’s Dōngběi zhūfān shūyào and the Běi Liáo tōngshū on Tiānzuò’s reign-name being Shòuchāng 壽昌 rather than Shòulóng 壽隆 (which would be naming-taboo on his grandfather Shèngzōng’s name Lóngxù 隆緒); confirmed by surviving stelae — the Āndézhōu Língyánsì stele, the Yùshí Guānyīn xiàng stele, the Tàizǐ dànshèng yì stele in Yìzhōu — all give Shòuchāng. Lù Yóu’s Lǎoxuéān bǐjì says Shèngzōng’s Chóngxī was, after Tiānzuò’s accession, retroactively rewritten as Chónghé 重和 — confirmed by the Tiānqìng 2 (1112) SākyamuniDìngguāng pagoda inscription. None of this is in the Liáo shǐ. Qián Dàxīn’s Qiányántáng jīnshí jì further infers from the Tàizǐ dànshèng yì stele the existence of zhījūnzhōushì 知軍州事, tōngpàn jūnzhōushì 通判軍州事, zhīxiànshì 知縣事 institutions in Liáo, all absent from the Bǎiguān zhì. Lì È’s Liáo shǐ shíyí (KR2a0034) catches even more.)
But the work uses the shílù as basis, with no attempt to dress up. As when Sòng shǐ records the Tàipíng xīngguó 7 (982) battle at Fēngzhōu, this work says Sòng sent for peace; Sòng shǐ Zhōngyì has Kāng Bǎoyì biography, this work says Bǎoyì surrendered after capture, later was Zhāoshùn jūn jiédùshǐ. Examining the conditions, the Liáo shǐ is more credible. This is why all three histories run together and cannot be partial.
Abstract
The Liáo shǐ is the dynastic history of the Khitan Liáo (907–1125), the great northern non-Hàn empire that controlled the Mongolian steppe, eastern Manchuria, and the Sixteen Prefectures of YānYún south of the Great Wall for two centuries. Compiled at the Yuán court in Zhìzhèng 3–4 (1343–1344) under Toqto’a’s supervision, in just twelve months — by far the shortest compilation period of any zhèngshǐ.
The compilation drew almost entirely on two transmitted texts: Yēlǜ Yǎn 耶律儼’s Liáo shílù 遼實錄 (compiled in the late Liáo) and Chén Dàrén 陳大任’s Liáo shǐ (compiled under Jīn Zhāngzōng in the early thirteenth century, in 75 juǎn). The strict Liáo prohibition against export of texts (note Shěn Kuò’s Mèngxī bǐtán on the Sēng Xíngjūn Lóngkān shǒujìng incident) had limited access in the Sòng to Liáo materials; the destruction of the Five Capitals in the Liáo–Jīn war of 1124–1125 had destroyed most other Liáo records. Hence the unusual thinness of the available documentation, which the Yuán compilers acknowledged.
The structural deficiencies — repetition of the same material across jì, zhì, biǎo, and zhuàn; thin biographical sections forced to fill out by including borderline figures — are openly acknowledged by the Sìkù compilers as the natural consequence of the source-thinness. The Yíngwèi zhì 營衛志 (juǎn 31–33), describing the Khitan tribal-confederation system and its yearly nàbō 捺缽 movements, is the principal source for Khitan social organisation. The Bǎiguān zhì (juǎn 45–48) describes the unique Liáo dual-administration system (the Běimiàn 北面 ministers for steppe administration; the Nánmiàn 南面 ministers for Hàn-style administration) — the foundational institutional model for all subsequent non-Hàn dynasties of conquest (Jīn, Yuán, Qīng).
Following the Sìkù-era discovery of Liáo-period epigraphy and the work of 厲鶚 Lì È in the Liáo shǐ shíyí (KR2a0034) on supplementing the dynastic history from Sòng-era sources, modern scholarship has substantially extended the documentary basis. The Wényuāngé text further carries Qing kǎozhèng by Zhōu Chángfā 周長發 (catalog meta gives 20 juǎn of kǎozhèng).
The standard modern punctuated edition is the Zhōnghuá Shūjú Liáo shǐ (5 vols., 1974, ed. Féng Jiāshēng 馮家昇); revised Xiūdìngběn 5 vols., 2016 (Liú Pǔ 劉浦江, Kāng Péng 康鵬 et al.).
Translations and research
Substantial partial translation: Karl A. Wittfogel and Fêng Chia-shêng, History of Chinese Society: Liao (907–1125) (American Philosophical Society, 1949) — the principal English-language scholarly work on the Liáo, with extensive Liáo shǐ translations integrated throughout. Standard Chinese-language scholarship: Lì È 厲鶚, Liáo shǐ shíyí (KR2a0034); Yáng Fùlín 楊復林, Liáo shǐ jí jiào 遼史輯校 (Mongolian Studies series, 1962); Liú Pǔjiāng 劉浦江, Liáo Jīn shǐ lùn 遼金史論 (Liáoníng Dàxué, 1999); Liú’s posthumous Sōngmō zhī jiàn: Liáo Jīn Qìdān nǚzhēn shǐ yánjiū 松漠之間：遼金契丹女真史研究 (Zhōnghuá, 2008); Féng Jiāshēng 馮家昇, Liáo shǐ chū jiào 遼史初校 (Wǔhàn Dàxué, 1937).
Other points of interest
The Yíngwèi zhì preserves the only extant systematic description of the Khitan annual nàbō hunting-and-meeting cycle — the foundational seasonal-political institution of the Khitan dual-state system. The Bǎiguān zhì’s account of Běimiàn / Nánmiàn dual administration is the institutional template for all subsequent Inner Asian conquest dynasties.