Themiclesian nobility
The Themiclesian nobility (百姓, pryāk-sings) consists of multiple categories of individuals that enjoy varying degrees of social, political, and economic privilege. The full name of the nobility is summarized, per historian H. Bin, in this phrase "Tsjinh, patriarchs, barons, manors, and commissions, the states, and the hundred clans" (晉眔邦伯眔侯甸任眔邦君眔百姓君, tsins-prwāng-prak-nerep-gwā-lings-nem-nerep-prwāng-qur-nerep-pryāk-sings).
History
Antiquity
Historians note that Themiclesia's "feudalism" was not uniformly founded upon the agreement to provide military service in return for land as the canonical Casaterran forms were, but instead land-holding was connected to settlement or colonial rights, mineral extraction, political alliance, and consanguinity, in addition to military service. Equally, the system of nobility which initially heavily aligned with privileged access to land, the labour that works land and subsists upon it, and products of them, shows a high degree of intersection as their interests dictate. The word "feudalism", according to some modern scholars, is only used today because of its prevalence in works up to about 1960; terms like "extension of urban economies into other cities" and "colonial system" are gaining favour.
Though it cannot be ascertained if the concept of real property was borrowed from Menghe or domestically developed, the earliest form of exclusive real property, that is to say access to the land exclusive of others, seems to have developed in the 6th or 5th centuries BCE, called ts′e′ (采); amongst other uses, they were used on mineral deposits, including lapis lazuli, that motivated Meng people to trade and eventually settle in Themiclesia. It is speculated that because mining was not suited to an individual or nuclear family, the ts′e′ was collectively held by a clan that specialized in mining. Parallels are drawn with early agricultural practices, limited by lack of tools and knowledge, that relied on large-scale labour; under this model, land ownership would also have been communal and hereditary.
Scant evidence from this period suggest most powers were founded upon the structure of clans, leaders being referred to as "patriarchs" (伯, brak; 百 in monumental style). Major clans diversified into multiple modes of production, and others may have approached them seeking commerce or protection. Themiclesia's earliest cities appeared in the 3rd c., and it is thought that in this context hierarchies bewteen non-consanguineous groups appeared during. In the colonialization period that lasted from the 2nd c. to the 2nd c. CE, clans sought to expand their influence through rapid settlement and exploitation of unsettled areas or those occupied by aboriginals. On the one hand, physical distances diluted the clan-patriarch's powers and the practice of endogamy that held clans together, necessitating novel means of controlling settlements; on the othe hand, new wealth enlarged the patriarch's material advantages over his other nobles.
The political relationship provided by kinship was complicated by geography. Within the space of a defensive settlement, some clans exerted authority over others, through material or military superiority, but others clans appeared to be stable in a less stratified relationship. The "escapees" (氓, mrang), mostly families that have "escaped" control by larger clans or slaves from their owners, likely formed an economically-significant class that grew in prominence during the colonial period. These free individuals moved between cities, often in search of favourable terms of settlement or away from misrule. Though canonical histories paid little attention to them, they were probably more powerful than early records credit them. The escapees have, in different cities, resisted excesses by both negotiations and rioting and ejected rulers. Most rulers, aside from the support of their kinfolk, actively sought the affection of the escapees to solidify his rule or even resist constraints on his power imposed by his clan.
In the final phase of Themiclesian antiquity (to 256 CE), webworks of settlements and manors, economically under a chief city, evolved into rudimentary territorial states; this shift was in part conditioned by a desire to deny land, even unopened lands, to other chief cities, when the scale and thus cost of warfare increased. In Tsjinh, the colonial model had allowed a small group of nobles, including the city's patriarch, to become exceptionally but comparably wealthy; in Kem, the colonial wealth seems to have entirely fed into its prince's coffers, which encouraged a form of despotic rule. At any rate, the nobles' colonial henchmen, once more similar to prospecters, formed an inferior aristocracy that historians call the baronage. It contrasted with the metropolitan nobility variably called the peerage, signifying parity between its members, or the patriarchy, referring to their (notional) status as clan leaders, even though at this point their kin were no longer primary to their power.
Due to increasing demands of warfare, the metropoles tended to shift defensive burdens onto their colonies; in this context, barons often became hereditary military commanders, leading colonies' forces into battle for their overlords. Exactions from colonies appeared to near a breaking point until the Treaty of Five Cities was concluded by the states facing tensions within their borders. However, the tension between the colonial producers and metropolitan consumers, and by extension the barons and the patriarchs, persisted into the Tsjinh period.
Medieval period
Modern period
During the Themiclesian Republic, the aristocracy deposed Emperor ′Ei and instituted a primitive form of formal representative government. Though this "perpetual regency" was mostly symbolic according to most, it reversed the trend towards greater royal power in the previous millennium.
Royalty
The imperial princes (室諸王, stit-ta-wang), or princes of the blood, are the sovereign's descendants that do not inherit the throne. The modern system of imperial titles was introduced in the 12th century and in response to a desire to strengthen the ruling dynasty's political influence as well as ceremonial precedence, since during this period princely titles were freely granted to rulers in the interior and subcontinent. Minor figures thus outranked even the most senior princes of Themiclesia who did not have titles in their own right. The monarch appropriate princely titles for the use of his own household as a solution.
The holders of the imperial prince titles do so by courtesy to their relationship with the reigning monarch, and as such, their titles are neither substantive nor heritable. The first system was in effect between the 12th century and 1849, which granted titles according to the following principles.
- Grand prince (大王, dai-wang), all legitimate children of the Emperor and the Crown Prince; the heir-apparent of the Emperor's legitimate children
- Prince (王, wang), legitimate children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of a grand prince
In 1849, the system was modified by granting titles purely based on the generations of separation from the sovereign alone.
Note that titles in the house are automatically upgraded if relationships change after a succession.
Principalities
The palatine princes (諸王) are the most senior titles recognized by the Themiclesian nobility system. On a symbolic level, the relationship between the sovereign and the palatine princes is one created by a treaty between equals, unlike that with his barons, which is created by vassalage, and with his children, created by descent. This symbolic equality is punctuated by political inequality, whereby the princes have surrendered part of their jurisdiction under the terms of the Treaty of Five in the 3rd century; the independence of their states, from the Tsins suzerain, shrank during centuries of negotiations and conflict, but their rulers' nominal parity with the sovereign was retained. This situation persisted until the end of the 10th century, when the palatine princes, by now mascots of political conservatism, were finally deposed.
Though the palatine princes no longer existed as individuals, their titles and privileges remained a useful tool to satisfy several other traditions, such as marriage between social equals. The king, or emperor after 542, customarily took a palatine princess' hand in marriage, and after deposition a noblewoman was symbolitically raised to the rank of a palatine princess. The same was done for the sovereign's biological mother, if she was of a sufficient background and not the same person as his predecessor's consort.
Baronage
While the upper ranks of the Themiclesian system of nobility is often called the "peerage" in modern times, historians prefer the term "baronage" to refer to its earlier state, as it consisted specifically of barons established by the monarch in return for military service. When such a distinction is made, the "peerage" is a separate group of nobles who did not owe military service to the crown and instead possessed semi-independent authority over their lands. Until the end of the Hexarchy, the peers were more similar to junior allies of the king, rather than his vassals, and peers could establish their own barons.
Ordinary baron
The ordinary baron (徹侯) originated in antiquity as hereditary leaders of militarized colonies bound to a sovereign, and later it came to be applied to any hereditary nobleman with independent armed forces. In this regard, it is sometimes translated as "marquis" or "baron" in historical texts. The fiefdoms of these nobles were always on the peripheries of the lord's territories, where warfare was frequent, as a baron's defining duty was to defend his lord's territories.
Titular baron
The titular baron (倫侯) literally means "equal of barons". It was originally a categorical title applied to a variety of senior nobles during the Tsjinh kingdom that did not possess military forces (or at any rate not bound by vassalage in their use) but held the same dignity as one that did. It displaced older titles (viz. below) such as the manorial patriarch and settlement-lord. The fiefdoms of titular peers, as a characteristic, were all located near or within the sovereign's demesne land, so they could be protected by a centralized army.
Non-feudal nobility
It was formerly thought that all noble titles were originally feudal, and the lower ones, perhaps succumbing to royal power, gradually became not heritable, not manorial, or detached from specific pieces of land. A more recent view is that the "non-feudal" titles were new developments following the founding of stronger administrative apparatus. For one, the earliest reliable documents predating the Hexarchy, the Book of Charges, do not mention non-feudal nobles; all charges included land granted to the recipient's clan or family, with no exception. Instead, the non-feudal titles, sk′rjang and ladh-pja were the names of positions in the early household bureaucracy. The former is likely to have been an abbreviation from sk′rjang-dzrje′ (卿事), a deputy for cultic ceremonies, and ladh-pja was often the head of a department, as evidenced in terms like mg′rah-s.rje′-ladh-pja, "officer of affairs".
The precise entitlements of the counsels and officers varied from time to time. In the Hexarchy and early Tsjinh dynasties, it is generally agreed that counsels and officers were feudal, possessing their own domains that may be passed on to successors, but between then and the 4th century they lost manorial powers and, by the Sungh a fixed domain. Into the Rjang period, counsels and officers were no longer heritable titles and were given as rewards for bureaucratic and military service, providing their holders with an appointed set of lands already under cultivation, whose tax revenues went to them instead of the government. This arrangement remained stable for an exceedingly long time and was not totally abolished until 1715, to centralize finance to refurbish the military forces.
Counsel
The title of counsel (卿) was granted to senior members of the administration or distinguished foreigners serving the Themiclesian government. It gave the holder a fairly large piece of agricultural land and a manor house, for life. The title also provided its holder's successor with privileges to enter the civil service, but the title itself was not heritable. There were two sub-ranks of counsels, the principal counsel (徹卿, r′jêt-sk′rjang) and adjunct counsel (介卿, krêbh-sk′rjang), the former being the more senior. The Principal Counsels, heads of departments in the canonical bureaucracy, are thus named because they tended to be individuals who have achieved this rank in the nobility.
Principal
The title Principal (大夫) was granted to relatively junior members of the administration. As with counsel, it also gave to the holder agricultural and housing land for life, without manorial powers, and to his successors preference in entering the civil service. The title is not heritable otherwise. There are three ranks of the officer, the ordinary principal (大夫, ladh-pja), the departmental principal (官大夫, kwar-ladh-pja), and royal principal (公大夫, klong-ladh-pja).
Defunct titles
ghwang
The title ghwang (王) is attested in both oracular and bronze epigraphy. In later times, the word itself is usually translated as "king" or "prince", as it signifies a paramount ruler with much authority over his subordinates, but this meaning does not emerge from the earlier Themiclesian inscriptions. Rather, ghwang were obscure figures who often submitted to other rulers, principally patriarchs. Etymologically, ghwang represents an axe with blade down, but the interpretation of the image remains controversial; some believe it was borrowed as a rebus from a kind of axe called ghwang or something phonetically similar, while others believed the axe was semantic and somehow associated with the title ghwang. The former argument suffers from a conspicuous absence of any attested sort of weapon with that name, and the epexegetical reference used to support the latter, defining a ghwang as one who can conquer, may be apocryphal or an aetiological anachronism.
In the Book of Charges, a total of nine ghwang are mentioned, of whom four are purported to be charged by the Patriarch of Tsinh. This does not, however, mean that the Patriarch could create or remove ghwang at will, as many baronies and manors were only "charged" via oracular divination as a post hoc recognition of their power. While the sites of dozens of baronies and manors have been found, only one site found is associated with a ghwang, and it is not considered especially large or influential. In two instances, ghwang is used interchangeably with gwa (侯) or baron, a phenomenon that is confirmed in the oracular record.
In contrast with the obscurity of ghwang prior to the Hexarchy, scholars of the Imperial school, dominant in the Mrangh (543 – 752) court, often asserted that the absence of ghwang in Themiclesia meant that early Themiclesian rulers recognized their subordination to the Menghean monarchy, which used the title ghwang and reigned over a set of nobles that used titles similar to those used by Themiclesian ones. In this, they were opposed by the Southern School, mostly jurists, which asserted that Themiclesian states, from antiquity, were separate from any political authority in Menghe. The debate centred around the problem of what ghwang truly meant—whether merely a powerful ruler, or one who did or should rule the known world.
Elder
The title elder (公, kwang) was used to denote a senior figure in a polity. This political sense is usually thought to be a derivative from the kinship meaning of an elder male relative. The term is oracularly attested in this primitive usage. The Themiclesian elder, sometimes translated as "duke", does not have military connotations that is present in the etymology of the Casaterran duke, from Old Sylvan dux, "military leader, commander".
In the Book of Charges (composed before the Hexarchy), at least some elders possess the power to interpret tortoise-shell oracles, in parallel to the patriarch. There may be more than one elder speaking together or separately in that text, but instances where their actions occur independently of the patriarch are rare. From epigraphic information, some suggest that elders may be figures from one or two generations before the patriarch, and they may have had the opportunity or right to become patriarch but did not. A number of anthropologists argue that elders are leaders of moieties or lineages within the broader Tsjinh kinship group, but this theory, though plausible, is complicated elders powers beyond their own lineages.
At any rate, after the sweeping changes dated to the reign of Sixth P.rjang′ (r. c. 295 – 260 BCE), the title "elder" appears more frequently and dynamically. While some scholars say that elders have acquired more political functions in this period, others point out that the genre of reliable texts are highly restrictive and provide a very partial view of the role of a elder. Conversely, the position that all changes to the apparent functions of elders are attributable to evolutions in writing styles is also considered extreme. The fact that elders are named after this period is cited by some to buttress the argument that kinship structures have begun to weaken in favour of other forms of political organization; however, in stark contrast with the mid- and late Hexarchy, elders are never appointed by patriarchs like barons, manor-holders, and missionaries, suggesting that the right to become a elder was still rooted in kinship.
During the dynastic period, elders became increasingly assertive. In 105, the Patriarch of Drings (奠伯) became the first appointed elder, having no true connection with the royal household. At this time, the factional quarrel between the patriarchs and barons reached a temporary denouement in favour of the former, and the most influential patriarch or patriarchs held power at court as the sole elder or collegiate elders. For this reason, elders rank higher than barons in the nobility. The elder's relationship with the king also influenced the extent of his powers, which grew if the monarch was either minor, senile, or poorly reputed; however, this relationship was generally tenable, as the elder represented the patriarchs' willingness to contribute financially and militarily to royal governance and keep the barons in check.
Elderdom reached its zenith in the 4th century under the elders N.rang (唐公) and Elder Lrin (畋公). The Elders N.rang controlled the court for nearly sixty years, while Elder Lrin held power for twenty years, with a four-year civil conflict between the two periods.
During the Themiclesian Republic, Elder was the title of the head of government.
Patriarch
The title patriarch (伯, brāk) was the common term used to identify the leaders of clans, especially when they came to develop into geographic entities, and all state leaders until recently, when the title "king" became customary. Across the Meng polities of Themiclesia, an patriarch held political powers over his clan, dependent clans, and (by extension) the lands they occupied; he could be a vassal or a sovereign. The word "patriarch" had several variations, whose precise meanings are not clear.
While the title "patriarch" certainly implied a degree of economic if not political and military power, some argue, it was not acquired on the basis of an equal or unequal relationship with another power; in this sense, "it was often more of a descriptor than a title or office." The received history of Themiclesia supports this conclusion, according to A. Gro. Into the 1st century CE, the patriarchs who became subordinate to a higher power but still held land were often called "estate lord" (里君, rje-kjur), along with smaller landholders who achieved prominence by other means. Some scholars say that the estate-lordship was the beginning of land ownership in the modern sense, i.e. holding the rights to use and dispose of land but subject to its laws.
The region-patriarch (方伯, pāng-brāk) referred to leaders that were, more or less, unassociated with the speaker's state. Philologically, the word "region" translates pjang, "adjoining", which may then indicate "adjoining powers". The leaders of ethnic minority groups and polities were typically called region-patriarchs in older documents. The leaders of the Columbian nations were called "region-patriarchs" into the modern period.
The manor-patriarch (甸伯, lings-brāk) were heads of clans that held farmland and contributed part of their products, whether in kind or money, to the Tsjinh patriarch. Manor-patriarchs were once the dominant kind of title in the bronze inscription record, but in the beginning of the Common Era their prominence in historical records began to dilute very rapidly. It is possible that their manorial authorities were absorbed by an ambitious crown, or that clan-based production and administration was disrupted for reasons yet not clearly known. The manor-patriarchs, as a group having lost manorial rights, became indistinguishable from the manor-barons (甸侯) and the urban-lords (邦君), who merged to become titular lords during the early 5th century.
The state-patriarch (邦伯, prōng-brāk) may be a summative term for all political leaders who ruled a given area or represent a distinct position. In the late hexarchy and early dynastic period, "barons, manor-holders, missionaries, and state-patriarchs" became a fixed phrase that outlined the extent of royal power in the Tsjinh state. In this context, state-patriarchs stood in opposition to barons, manor-holders, and missionaries, the latter being in a more restrictive relationship with the paramount ruler.
Manor-barons
The manor-baron (甸侯, lings-go) is a relatively obscure title whose significance has troubled scholars for centuries. First, it is uncertain whether it was completely distinct from the manor-patriarch, and in what way, if it was distinct. On the surface, the prefix "manor-" seems to suggest it was located in an intensively-cultivated region and, by association with the manor-patriarch, within a firmly-controlled and protected area; however, it also contains the word "baron", which indicates some sort of military charge. One theory states that a manor-baron possessed a military function and paid in their products, but this is not borne out by bronze inscriptions.
Urban-lords
The urban-lords (邦君, prōng-qur) is a nobleman who was given a title to an established settlement. Historians provide that the baron was not only a manorial and military leader, he was also a colonist; in contrast, the urban-lord possess a title over a settlement to which he has no native connection. This is a later term that emerged in the early dynastic period, when the ruler possessed more power over the disposal of land.
Precedence
As the nobility was continuous between royal dynasties, various historians gave the relative seniority in ceremonial terms, quite uniformly, as follows. Seniority is still stressed in these works even if the rank had been obsolete for centuries.
| Extant | Defunct | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Emperor (皇帝) | |
| 2 | Palatine prince (邦伯; 8th c.) | |
| 3 | Elder (公; 15th c.) | |
| 4 | Ordinary baron (徹侯) | |
| 5 | Titular baron (倫侯) | Urban-lord (邦君; 4th c.) |
| 6 | Manor-patriarch (甸; 6th c.) | |
| 7 | Royal prince (公子) | |
| 8 | Missionaries (任事; 6th c.) |
Privileges
Seating order
The seating order at court (位, kerebh) was a contested honour for most of the history of the Themiclesian court. In important ceremonies, the sovereign sat facing south, while his subjects sat facing north; this tradition, apparently of Menghean antiquity, has been extensively philosophized in later works, but its origins are now thought to be independent of the theories that ancient scholars have proposed to explain it. The palatine princes and elders, who are nominally sovereigns, too sit facing south. Their subjects, the barons lesser nobles, sit facing north.
Mattresses
Prior to the introduction of chairs, Themiclesians usually sat on bamboo-woven mattresses, which may be elevated off the ground by the means of a bed. A canopy may also be erected over the seat for dignitaries. The number of mattresses one sat on and the number of individuals with whom one shared the mattress were a statement of dignity.
The Themiclesian monarch sat on four mattresses and under a double canopy (重帷). Palatine princes and elders were too sat upon four mattresses and a double tent, and the Chancellor likewise but under a single canopy.