THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN: THEMASQUERADE OF MING EMBROIDERED-

UNIFORM GUARD LIU SHOUYOU

HUIPING PANG

Stanford University, USA

The story of how Embroidered-Uniform Guard confiscators defied the MingEmperor Wanli (r. 1573–1620) to uphold their own particular view of justice isrich in detail, but has been virtually ignored in scholarship on Ming culturalhistory. This paper presents a case study of the Embroidered-Uniform Guard confis-cator Liu Shouyou (c. 1540–1604) and his guardsmen, who risked their own lives inassisting the deposed grand secretary to illegally evade property confiscations fromWanli. What constituted the guards’ moral justification for abusing the law in thisway, and what did this violation indicate about the relationship among theemperor, his former grand secretary, and confiscating guards? This paper compli-cates the negative historical portrayal of the guards as corrupt henchmen byprobing the motivation of the Liu squad, who strove to find an equilibriumbetween obedience and ethics in capital society. Finally, this analysis opens a doorto future studies on the intersection of art collecting and criminality at the lateMing court.

KEYWORDS: Emperor Wanli, grand secretary, Embroidered-Uniform Guard, LiuShouyou, property confiscation

In the sixteenth century, the Ming dynasty army possessed 493 regional guard units,72 capital guards, and 26 imperial Embroidered-Uniform Guards.1 Among them,the Embroidered-Uniform Guard (hereafter the guard) was the most prestigious.They wore uniforms with flying-fish embroidery, carried embellished swords, andtook instructions directly from the emperor.2 In contrast to the regular bureaucraticprotocol of appointing government officials, most of the guards were sons of heredi-tary military families; they assumed the guard posts through the yin privilegewithout taking national examinations.3 In addition, the guard commanders (jinyizhihui; rank 3a) were directly chosen by the emperor, who in return expected com-plete loyalty from them. During the eras of Emperors Jiajing (r. 1522–66) and Wanli(r. 1573–1620), the guards were given unprecedented police and judicial power thatallowed them to intervene in legal proceedings.4 They supervised the ImperialPrison, arrested suspected imperial targets, performed interrogations, and carriedout punishments such as executions and property confiscations. Because of thenature of their duties, the guards have been historically stereotyped as villains

Ming Studies, 72, 24–45, November 2015

© The Society for Ming Studies 2015 DOI 10.1179/0147037X15Z.00000000045MORE OpenChoice articles are open access and distributedunder the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License 3.0

who abused their power by extorting money and confessions through torture.5 TheMingshi ningxing zhuan (Biographies of Flatterers) characterized many guards —such as Ji Gang (executed 1416), Men Da (1450s), Lu Gao (executed 1461), JiangBin (executed 1521), Qian Ning (executed 1521), and Lu Bing (1510–60)— as self-interested and corrupt sycophants who tortured, killed, and bribed on their climb upthe political ladder (see MS 307.7877–93).Nevertheless, this one-sided portrayal overstates guards as the emperor’s hench-

men. It neglects the fact that some guards suffered moral conflicts while followingunethical imperial orders. My research adds to the most recent scholarship, whichholds that, in the sixteenth century, literati elites increasingly extolled the virtuesand deeds of military men for their loyalty to their friends (Ryor, 2009: 230). Mypaper complements Ryor’s observation by delving into a special type of militaryman — the Embroidered-Uniform Guard — who risked his live to assist his minis-terial friends, which won him admiration from civil officials.Inheriting large social networks through their family connections, the guards were

often popular figures among the civil and military officials in capital society. Guardcommanders such as Lu Bing and Liu Shouyou (c. 1540–1604) married their chil-dren to the progeny of the senior grand secretaries Yan Song (1480–1567) andXu Jie (1503–83), respectively.6 Marriage ties, mutual interests, and intergenera-tional social networks often linked the guards to the grand secretaries. In additionto their connections with ministers, guards also enjoyed imperial favor.Having ties to both groups put the guards in a dilemma. The emperor, as a sym-

bolic figure of the state, sometimes found himself threatened by his influential grandsecretaries (Pang, 2012: 431). Compared to the latter, who wielded substantialadministrative power, the guards were more trusted by the emperor. The emperorthen called on the guards to enforce orders against the grand secretaries.7 As aresult, the guards faced difficult situations in which their loyalties were tornbetween the emperor and their ministerial friends. Because of this ethical conflict,studying the quandary of the guards will reveal the sociopolitical dynamics inBeijing during the era.My paper investigates these dynamics by presenting a case study of Liu Shouyou,

the guard commander from 1560–88.8 Liu, his deputy Shi Jishu (d. 1598; rank 3b),and other subordinate guards (hereafter Liu and his guardsmen) defied Wanli inorder to uphold their own view of justice. They were repeatedly ordered by Wanlito appropriate property from deposed ministers who had fallen out of favor. Witnes-sing the emperor’s abuse of his ownministers for monetary gain, Liu and his guardsmenfound their loyalty tested. The situation reached a tipping point when Wanlicommanded the Liu squad to seize the property of the deceased imperial tutorZhang Juzheng (1525–82; senior grand secretary from 1572–82), who hadpreviously befriended Liu and Shi. The Liu squad then betrayed the emperor byconspiring with Zhang’s sons to hide their family property, which included preciouspainting and calligraphy collections.This paper brings to light the political struggles these guards faced. Disputing his-

torical bias against the guards, this research highlights how Liu and his guardsmenendeavored to strike a balance between obedience to the emperor and their determi-nation to act according their own vision of justice. I examine the guards’ quandaryand moral justifications by scrutinizing legal statutes, censorial indictments, minis-terial memorials, court diaries, local gazetteers, and the guards’ correspondences

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 25

with their literati friends. By interrogating the guards’ motivations for disobeyingthe emperor, and exploring how this insubordinance animated a debate over theconflict between loyalty and justice, this paper integrates studies of legal historyand imperial violence into that of late Ming art collecting culture.

THE SCENARIO

The recurrent betrayals among Emperor Wanli, deposed ministers, and imperialbodyguards constitute the heart of this paper, which interrogates the court politicsand the place of the guard in capital society. The two most notable ministers targetedby Wanli were his imperial mentors: his tutor, Zhang Juzheng, and his boyhoodcompanion, Feng Bao (fl. 1520–83), the head of the eunuch-run Directorate of Cer-emonial and the Eastern Depot. The two mentors jointly secured the throne for thenine-year-oldWanli, but the monarch grew tired of their supervision as he matured.9

After Zhang’s death on 6/20/1582, the nineteen-year-old emperor began to plotrevenge against the families of his former mentors.10 Wanli exiled Feng in the firstmonth of 1583 and conspired with his censors to bring about prosecutionsagainst the Feng and Zhang partisans for corruption (Pang, 2012: 433).11 Afterbeing brutally tortured, these men confessed to the crimes for which they wereaccused, upon which they were banished. The emperor could then, based on theCol-lected Statutes of the Great Ming, legitimately take possession of their property.12 Tominimize corruption, the emperor would typically select confiscators from five to sixcensorial departments for mutual monitoring: the secret serviceEmbroidered-Uniform Guard, Eastern Depot, the Three Judicial Offices (a collectiveterm for the Censorate, the Minister of Punishment, and the Court of JudicialReview), and influential eunuchs from the Directorate of Ceremonial (Pang,2015b).13 Among these, the guard commander (e.g. Liu) played an important rolein orchestrating the confiscation procedure. To intimidate confiscators, the Col-lected Statutes of the Great Ming further stipulated that any violator who repeatedlystole from the imperial treasuries would be strangled.14 If caught colluding withother officials to contravene the law, the offender would be beheaded (seeWLHD, 174.886).Nevertheless, the ostensibly rigid laws could be manipulated by confiscators if

they conspired with each other. For example, Liu secretly withheld several paintingsand calligraphies for himself during appropriations. At least eight painting scrollsattributed to third to fourteenth centuries and forty Song dynasty (960–1279)album pages in Liu’s collection belonged to disgraced ministers whose propertywas seized by the Liu squad. As I will show later, the ministers’ families entrustedLiu to conceal this property from Wanli. The Liu case thus highlights the conflictingroles of the guards as imperial confiscators and as devoted friends of the veryministers whose property they removed.

THE SUBVERSION OF IMPERIAL EXPECTATIONS OF GUARD BEHAVIOR

Descending from prestigious families, Liu Shouyou and Shi Jishu both inherited theirguard positions from meritorious forebears, and were subject to a code of expectedbehavior. Liu’s remote ancestor Meng (fourteenth century) had assisted the Mingfounding emperor in establishing his dynasty.15 Liu’s grandfather Tianhe (1479–

26 HUIPING PANG

1546), a virtuous military strategist at theMinistry ofWar, had toured the northwestShaanxi-Gansu frontier to ward off the Mongolian invasions.16 Liu’s father Can(jinshi 1532) was known as an incorruptible Vice Minister of Punishment inNanjing.17 Because of their forebears’ integrity and dedication to the dynasty, LiuShouyou and his son Chengxi (1560s–1622) were given the hereditary post ofBattalion Commander of the Guard (jinyi qianhu; rank 5a).18 Liu Shouyouassumed his guard post in Beijing in 1566 (see Wu, 1934: 192). Thereafter heguarded three consecutive emperors: Jiajing (r. 1522–66), Longqing (r. 1567–73),and Wanli.19 Liu enjoyed Wanli’s favor for about fifteen years, from the emperor’saccession in 1573 until 1588, when Liu was cashiered after the exposure of his pastfriendship with the imperial targets Feng and Zhang.20

The Liu case therefore is a perfect demonstration of the conflict between theimperial expectation of obedient behavior from the guards and the defiance of offi-cial duties. This internal conflict manifested in several ways: (1) Liu’s ancestors weremilitary officials venerated for their loyalty and integrity (WLYHB, 21.536).Because of this lineage, he was expected to show sufficient discipline to resist mon-etary temptation. (2) No evidence reveals that his ancestors had ever collected art.Liu’s actions, however, demonstrate his consuming desire for artworks. (3) Wanlipromoted Liu to the highest rank, investing him with sweeping police and judicialpowers. But Liu, in turn, violated the law and thereby betrayed the emperor. (4)The emperor, the deposed ministers (Feng and Zhang), and Liu knew each other inti-mately. Because the emperor demanded that Liu appropriate property from his min-isterial friends, the Liu squad found themselves struggling between their conflictingroles as private individuals and imperial confiscators. (5) Although Liu followedWanli’s command to remove property from Feng in 1583, he endangered his ownlife by helping Zhang’s family evade the emperor one year later. The Liu casebelow reveals the extent to which the guards actively subverted imperial ordersdespite rigid laws dictating their behavior.

CONFISCATING PROPERTY FROM THE FENG BAO FACTION

The years 1583–84 saw the opening of a rift betweenWanli and his former mentors.From 1582/12/8 onwards, Wanli decreed Liu and the eunuch Zhang Jing (d. 1608;Directorate of Ceremonial) to commandeer property from Feng’s faction, includingFeng Bao, Feng’s brother You, his nephew Bangning, and the subordinates Xu Jue(fl. 1560s–80s) as itemized in Appendix 1.21

The emperor attempted to acquire every item of possible monetary value from thewealthy Feng in order to alleviate the nation’s fiscal crisis.22 To Wanli’s astonish-ment, however, the loot delivered by the Liu squad amounted to less than 10% ofthe property formerly impounded from Yan Song (senior grand secretary from1542–62), whose estates were annexed by Wanli’s grandfather Jiajing in 1566. Anaccount book found in Feng’s house revealed that Feng had received numerousbribes from power-hungry officials in six ministries.23 But the fortune taken fromFeng was not even sufficient to defray the expenses for the sumptuous wedding inNovember, 1582 and upcoming enfeoffment of Wanli’s brother, the Prince of Lu(Zhu Yiliu, 1568–1614).24 In 1583/1, both theMinistry of Revenue and theMinistryof Works reported that Feng’s farmland was only worth 19,000 taels of silver, andhis mansions 69,000 taels (see WLDC, p. 148). More surprisingly, no paintings or

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 27

calligraphies were forfeited from Feng’s opulent residences. How was it possiblethat, despite Feng’s ownership of eight shops and 5,480 rooms in Shenzhou prefec-ture and Beijing, Wanli’s agents failed to secure any art pieces?25 In addition, Wanliheard that Feng had pilfered authentic antiques from the Treasury of Confiscationand secretly replaced them with forgeries.26 Feng left a colophon on ZhangZeduan’s (twelfth-century) Qingming Shanghe scroll in 1578 (Palace Museum,Beijing) and seals on the painting Deities on Five Stars and Twenty-eight Mansions(Palace Museum, Beijing) attributed to Liang Lingzan (c. 713–45), which demon-strated Feng’s ownership. But these art holdings seemed to have mysteriously disap-peared from Feng’s houses.It came as a profound shock to Wanli that Liu, his trusted personal bodyguard,

was charged with theft. On 1583/1/11, censor Mao Zaipeng (sixteenth century)arraigned Liu and seven other guards for larceny:

Liu Shouyou, the guard commander, colluded with his colleagues, includingthe Vice Commissioner-in-Chief (jinyi dudu tongzhi) Li Tinglu, commandersZhang Zhao, Guo Shangyou (jinshi 1601), as well as Battalion CommandersPang Qing, Feng Xin, and Jiao Lan. These conspirators from the guard pur-loined items during the property appropriations of the Feng factions. Theemperor first ordered Liu to quarantine all household items of Xu Jue, FengBao, Zhang Dashou, and Zhou Hai. En route, Liu, like a rat, furtively trans-ported valuables to his own house. Only 10–20% of the fortune was officiallyremitted to the court. Feng’s household goods were liquidated by Liu and hisgang of marauding officials. The inmates’ families did not venture to sue thedeceitful confiscators; they kept silent, allowing guardsmen like ZhangZhao to turn their fortune into cash.27

Upon hearing censor Mao’s indictment, the stunned emperor ousted other guards(e.g. Zhang Zhao) from office, yet exonerated Liu. Wanli did not punish Liu,instead giving him only a verbal reprimand.28 Six days later, the throne receivedanother striking memorial from censor Chen Xingxue (1546–1613), who enumeratedLiu’s ‘seven cardinal sins’:

[While confiscating property from Feng Bao’s nephew Bangding] Eunuch YaoZhong from the Office of Fuel smuggled out Feng Bangding’s belongings, suchas gold, silver, and jewelry. Yao’s nephew Deng Xun blackmailed him (Yao)into dividing the booty equally. Yao shouted and compelled military officerMa Lu to beat Deng to death. Censor Huang from Nancheng brought themto trial, but the guard commander Liu Shouyou suppressed the case withoutreporting it. I herein indict Shouyou’s seven grave offenses. (see MSZSL,132.2459 and GQ, 72.4430)

This memorial proceeds to divulge other exploits: Liu and his entourage harassing theinnocent, snatching the commandeered fortunes, and then pawning them for cash.Despite the exposure, Wanli penalized Liu with nothing but a verbal reprimand on1583/1/17 (see MSZSL, 132.2459); the emperor even bestowed taels of silver onLiu in 1583/9 upon completion of supervising a palace construction (MSZSL,140.2616).

28 HUIPING PANG

TUTOR ZHANG’S ESTATE: WANLI’S SECOND TARGET

After Feng’s banishment, the emperor turned his eyes on the deceased Zhang, whosefortune allegedly surpassed Feng’s. Zhang had allegedly embezzled Yan Song’shouse in Beijing after Yan’s disgrace (see WLYHB, buyi, 4.925). In addition,Zhang was condemned for extorting the deceased grand secretary Gao Gong’s(1513–78) art collection, including Su Shi’s (1037–1101) calligraphyOld DrunkardPavilion and antique vessels that were worth 1,000 taels of silver.29 Also, ministerWang Shizhen (1526–90) reported that Zhang withheld parts of art collections for-merly confiscated from Yan and the guard commander Zhu Xixiao (1518–74; Liu’sprevious superior) to swell his own coffers.30 On April 9, 1584, another bomb wasdropped by Prince of Liao’s (1526–82) concubine, who appealed in tears to Wanlithat Zhang had embezzled the fiefdom of Prince of Liao, including his calligraphycollection. Sensing an opportunity to seize Zhang’s fortune, the elated emperorimmediately confiscated Zhang’s property.31The profligate emperor expected that this seizure would bring in enormous

amounts of valuables, including art pieces.32 This time, Liu and his guardsmendid not participate. The Liu squad instead secretly assisted Zhang’s sons toconsign family treasuries, as we will see below. On April 9, 1584, Wanli deployedQiu Shun (1516–85), the Minister of Punishment and a bitter foe of Zhang, toteam up with eunuch Zhang Cheng (1580s), guard Cao Yingkui, and other confis-cators to march into Tutor Zhang’s houses in both Beijing and in the Jingzhou pre-fecture (see Appendix 1).33 On the same day, theMinistry of Punishment reported toWanli that only 2,400 taels of gold and 107,700 taels of silver had been removedfrom Zhang’s residence in Beijing.34 Equally strange were the confiscators’ claimsthat the Beijing mansion contained no art. After a period of thirteen days, duringwhich Zhang’s sons dispersed their valuables to their allies (e.g. Liu, Shi), JingzhouPrefect Hao Rusong (d. 1593) received the order to seal off Zhang’s house on April22 (see MSZSL, 149.2778). From May 7–12, the interrogator Qiu Shun beatZhang’s sons in Jingzhou with heavy sticks to extract confessions.35 Humiliatedand tormented, the eldest son Zhang Jingxiu (d. 1584; secretary in the Ministryof Rites) hanged himself on May 12 after falsely confessing that he had transferred300,000 taels of silver from the family savings to their associates.36 Jingxiu’s wifecommitted suicide, and Zhang’s fourth son jumped into a well. Ten other ofZhang’s offspring starved to death, incarcerated in an empty house. When found,their bodies had been dismembered by ravenous dogs.37 The cruel treatment ofZhang’s offspring triggered Liu and his guardsmen to side with the victims.The audit of Zhang’s forfeited estate made Wanli more suspicious of his bureau-

crats. Despite Zhang’s legendary wealth, only 200,000 taels of silver and 110 boxesof treasures were actually delivered from Zhang’s headquarters in Jingzhou toWanli’s court, which amounted to even less than the loot from Beijing.38 It wasrumored that Zhang had secreted away art collections frommultiple significant poli-ticians, such as the Prince of Liao, ex-grand secretaries Yan and Gao, and guard ZhuXixiao. Zhang’s mansions were supposedly crammed with Shang-dynasty vessels,Han-era mirrors, and sixth- to fifteenth-century paintings and calligraphies thatrivaled those of the imperial collection.39 If Zhang had been truly corrupt, whydid the confiscators not locate the embezzled collections, including those previously

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 29

seized from Yan and Zhu, such as the copious Song-dynasty album leaves? Whodared to hide treasures from Wanli? Alternatively, if so few antiquities had beenretrieved from Zhang’s houses, and if Zhang actually had not possessed large collec-tions, then how could Wanli justify his severe punishment of Zhang?Officials speculated that one of three reasons caused the disappearance of Zhang’s

belongings: Qiu Shun, theMinister of Punishment, suspected that after Feng’s down-fall on December 8, 1582, Zhang’s sons torched their own family treasures in orderto destroy possible evidence of their father’s corruption.40 A second camp held thatFeng dispatched his household servant Xu Jue to sneak some of Zhang’s valuables toFeng’s house immediately after Zhang’s death.41 A third blamed Zhang’s partisans,suspecting that upon hearing of the impending appropriation, Zhang’s associatesassisted his sons to distribute and conceal their father’s collections. The threats ofconfiscation preceded the arrival of imperial troops in Jingzhou by thirteen days,providing the Zhang family with ample time to dispose of their collections.

CENSORIAL CHARGES AGAINST LIU

Any or all of these factors could have caused the disappearance of Zhang’s assets.The third speculation, which accused Liu and his deputy Shi of spiriting awayZhang’s estates, consumed Wanli. At least thirteen accounts documented the possi-bility that Liu unlawfully assisted Zhang’s son Jianxiu (b. 1560) to conceal parts ofZhang’s estates.42 Additionally, the Nanjing Supervising Secretary Liu Yixiang(1542–1624) reported to Wanli on July 14, 1584 that Liu Shouyou had helpedZhang’s sons to circumvent the confiscations:

Since [Zhang’s household servant] You Qi was convicted, Zhang’s sons haveworried that disaster would befall them. They burned precious antiques forseveral days. Last year, after the exposure of Zhang’s sin [that he previouslymisappropriated Prince of Liao’s estate], his sons were terrified. Zhang’s sonJianxiu routed tens of thousands of golden treasures to Shi Jishu, theCommissioner-in-Chief of the Guard (jinyi dudu) […]. Zhang’s remainingtreasures passed through many hands. Therefore, only a few items belongingto Zhang were seized. (WLSC, 6.32 and 18.41)

The censors persistently castigated Liu and his guardsmen for transgressing the law,but the Liu squad were not the only ones suspected of being guilty. Zhang’s associ-ates in the six ministries were devastated after Zhang’s oldest son Jingxiu “admitted”to conspiring with them to stash away 300,000 taels. To recover the hidden loot,Wanli ordered that Qiu Shun returned to Jingzhou on August 17, 1584 onceagain to interrogate Zhang’s second son Sixiu (b. 1554) and the accused Zhangpartisans.43 Qiu extracted 257,000 taels of silver from them through torture.44 Inthe subsequent months, other unfortunate families in the Jingzhou-Chu regionwere implicated and their fortunes were appropriated byWanli’s men.45Meanwhile,the censorial prosecution targeted Liu, who had close ties to Zhang because theyboth hailed from the Chu region, and because Zhang had elevated Liu to theposition of the head of guards.

30 HUIPING PANG

ULTIMATE EVIDENCE: LIU’S SEALS ON ARTWORKS TAKEN FROM THE

DEPOSED MINISTERS

The direct evidence for Liu’s larceny can be found in his seals on paintings and calli-graphies previously collected by the disgraced ministers. Testimonies from Liu’sfriends Wang Shizhen and Zhan Jingfeng (1528–1602) reveal that Liu’s art holdingswere primarily acquired from the two imperial targets whose collections were inter-related: the grand secretary Yan Song and the Commissioner-in-Chief of the GuardZhu Xizhong (1516–73).46 Zhu arrogated many paintings seized from Yan, andboth of them had their property confiscated by the imperial court. For example,Li Gonglin’s (1049–1106) painting Lotus Society and Ma Hezhi’s (c. 1130–60)painting Odes of Chen were first owned by Yan, then confiscated by EmperorJiajing, and later bestowed to Zhu or Han Shineng (1528–98) as a reimbursementfor official wages during Emperor Longqing’s reign.47 Finally, both paintings fellinto Liu’s hands at some point in the Wanli period. Similarly, Zhao Mengfu’s(1254–1322) calligraphy Seven Miscellaneous Letters was officially confiscatedfrom Yan’s house (see Zhou Shilin, 1786: 187), smuggled out of the court, and sub-sequently acquired by Liu and his brother-in-law, General Qiu Changru (b. 1564).48

As another example, Liu removed ancient paintings from Zhu’s residence, such asZhang Sengyou’s (c. 502–19) painting Viewing the Stele (Zhan, 1591: 1.10),Wang Wei’s (701–61) Landscape (Zhan, 1591: 1.11), and the album leaf LiteratiGathering in the Western Garden attributed to Li Gonglin.Liu’s collections included artworks once owned by Yan, the Zhu brothers (Xixong

and Xixiao), and Zhang, who had all embezzled artworks from each other at differ-ent times.For example, the Zhu brothers acquired many of Yan’s holdings, and later on Zhang

pilfered the best works from both Yan and the Zhu brothers (Pang, 2012: 405). Afterthe death of Zhu Xizhong’s son, the Zhu family left no progeny to assume their rankand fortune.49 Hence Zhang and Liu were able to take at will from the remnants ofZhu’s art collection. In August, 1583, Wanli annulled Zhu Xizhong’s posthumoushonorific title,50 and in 1584 commandeered Zhang’s property. Because Liuhelped Zhang’s family evade this confiscation through transferring their familyproperty to the homes of associates, he would also have been in a position to takesomething for himself. Zhan Jingfeng’s 1591 record and Chen Jiru’s (1558–1639)account both relate that Liu’s private art collections grew speedily after propertyappropriations of Feng and Zhang (Chen, 1595: 2.37). However, since Liu’ssalary would not have been sufficient for the purchase of such valuable pieces (seebelow), this rapid growth suggests that at least a part of Liu’s art holdings wereacquired illegally.51

PERSISTING LOYALTY IN THE FACE OF CRIMES: EMPATHY FOR LIU AMONG

THE ELITES

Although Liu was embroiled in a judicial controversy, his political allies did notdesert him. The Prince of Lu, Shen Shixing (the newly appointed senior grand sec-retary from 1583 to 1591), and many other high officials all vouched for Liu.Shen and several grand secretaries steadfastly defended him, reassuring Wanli thatthe slander came from vindictive people jealous of Liu.52 Minister Wang Shizhen

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 31

downplayed Liu’s misdeed, arguing that it was Zhang who had pressed Liu and Shiinto transporting his treasures (see JYNSZ, 8.112). AsWanli knew, Liu’s progenitorshad defended the dynasty for many generations as members of the military elite (seeMGMCXZ, 9.1). Wanli hesitated in deciding Liu’s case for a number of years, inpart because of Liu’s sociopolitical connections. Before Wanli came to the throne,two prominent families had betrothed their daughters to Liu’s son. One was a great-granddaughter of Xu Jie, the senior grand secretary from 1562 to 1568.53 The otherwas the third daughter of Mei Guozhen (1542–1605), the affluent Macheng towns-man who would later be the Vice Minister of War.54 In a similar attempt to securepower, Mei married off his first two daughters to two of Liu’s nephews.55 InWanli’s era specifically, Liu fostered close ties with many powerful politicalfigures: the emperor, Prince of Lu, Feng Bao’s nephew Feng Bangning, the influentialeunuch Zhang Jing, and two succeeding senior grand secretaries, Tutor Zhang andShen Shixing (WLYHB, 17.449).All of this demonstrates that Liu remained politically and socially well connected,

presumably having no obvious motive for acting against the state and the emperor.Liu also forged alliances within various sectors of the elite: the minister-collectorsWen Zhaozhi (1519–87),56 Wang Shizhen, Wang Shimao (1536–88), and DongQichang (1555–1636); the art aficionados Zhan Jingfeng, Mo Shilong (1537–86),Chen Jiru, and Li Rihua (1565–1635); the leading philosophers Li Zhi (1527–1602),57Yuan Hongdao (1568–1610), and Hu Yinglin (1551–1602); as well as the play-wrights Tu Long (1542–1605), Tang Xianzu (1550–1617), and Feng Menglong(1574–1645). Liu’s sister and daughter married General Qiu Changru and literatiZhou Shunan (sixteenth century) respectively.58

Besides being so well connected within the political and martial spheres, Liu dis-played a classical literary aptitude that went far beyond that of his military fore-bears.59 In Beijing, Liu and his coterie often held banquets, inviting civil officials(e.g. Wang Shizhen, Wang Shimao, Li Weijing, Li Weizhen, Ou Zhenbo, QiuRuqian, Shen Sixiao), military officials (e.g. Mei Guozhen; guards Shi Jishu andLi Weiyin),60 and literati (e.g. Tang Xianzu, Tu Long, Yuan Hongdao).61 Theseguests would congregate in a convivial atmosphere to enjoy poetry and wine,occasionally admiring the calligraphy Liu wrote onto fans.62 Liu’s banquetsmixed various social groups, grand secretaries, civil and military bureaucrats, andliterati. As we shall see, this blurring of civil and military class boundaries wonhim the esteem of the literati, who would later extol Liu’s egalitarian hospitalityin their literary works while avoiding references to his political scandal.

WANLI’S VERDICT

Despite the censorial accusations that started in 1583, Liu’s network of political,military, and cultural allies still thrived. Given the extent of Liu’s connectionswithin different classes and social arenas, Wanli hesitated in his judgment of Liu.Even though Wanli suspected him of being involved with the disappearance of theFeng and Zhang’s collections, in subsequent years the emperor did not take actionto punish Liu.63

While the litigation against Liu had been temporarily suppressed in November,1583, Liu was eventually cashiered in November, 1588 because he was enmeshedin the legal troubles of his accomplice, eunuch Zhang Jing of the Eastern Depot.

32 HUIPING PANG

Although Wanli remained skeptical about the low return from the confiscation ofTutor Zhang’s houses, he elevated Liu to the highest posts (Tu, 1590: 18.546).During the five years from 1583 to 1588, Wanli conferred on Liu the militarytitles of Junior Guardian of the Heir (taizi shaobao; rank 1b) in 1585,64 Commanderof the Five Chief Military Commissions (wujun dudu; rank 1a) in 1587, as well asthe honorific civil-official titles Grand Guardian of the Heir Apparent (taizi taibao;rank 1a),65 and Grand Mentor of the Heir Apparent (taizi taifu; rank 1a) on August24, 1588.66 Liu’s discharge in 1588 stemmed from the felony committed by ZhangJing, who on December 8, 1582 under Wanli’s mandate collaborated with Liu topillage Feng’s family estates, but secreted away many items for himself.67 OnNovember 13, 1588, six censorial officials, including censor He Chuguang(1545–97), exposed Zhang Jing’s conspiracy with Liu and other confiscators toabscond with seized items as a revenge for Wanli’s harsh treatment of the deceasedtutor.68 This alone triggered Wanli’s eventual punishment of Liu and other turncoatconfiscators on November 23, 1588. The irritated emperor permanently expelledLiu from Beijing to his hometown Macheng.69 The conspirator Zhang Jing paidan enormous bribe to Wanli after a brief exile of a few months. The now-satisfiedemperor rehabilitated him to his Eastern Depot position in 1589/8.70 Other less for-tunate accomplices were banished or sentenced to death.71

This Liu episode could be construed as representative of the Ming confiscatorsconniving to flout the law. But an investigation of the complex milieu of guardculture — examining how lawbreakers justified their actions and why the politicaland literati elites chose to take Liu’s side — casts the guard’s defiance of theemperor in a more ambivalent light.

CORRUPTION OR CHIVALRY? LIU’S PREDICAMENT

The correspondence between Liu and his literati friends reveals how Liu struggled tofind an equilibrium between imperial orders and his own sense of justice. Many ofLiu’s confidants faced political hardships: Tang Xianzu and Tu Long were demotedfrom the Ministry of Rites in Beijing in 1584.72 Likewise, we know from Shen Defu(1578–1642) that Wanli first directed his sycophants (censors, eunuchs) to malignFeng and Zhang, and then wiped out his informants. Plagued by imperial terror,Liu and other guards feared becoming Wanli’s next prey (WLYHB, 9.233). Asrecounted by Shen, such tragedies routinely repeated themselves:

Wanli’s posthumous punishment of Zhang was harsh. Even theEmbroidered-Uniform Guards did not venture to plead a single word ofmercy for Zhang. The guard leader Liu Shouyou from Macheng…wasworried that such a catastrophe would happen to him. Minor officials whowere allied with the Zhang party faced a similar tragedy as Zhang.(WLYHB, 18.464)

The cumulative trauma caused by imperial attacks might explain why Wanli’s‘trusted agents’ betrayed him and aligned themselves with the Zhang partisans. Ina court where the paranoid ruler constantly turned against his cronies to pursuehis material desires, the confiscators’ perfidy might signify their protest againstwhat they perceived as injustice.

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 33

The fact that the guard-confiscators were personally affiliated with Zhang helpsto explain their motivation for defying Wanli.73 Shen Defu’s reminiscences elucidatewhy Liu endangered himself by lining up with Zhang:

Liu Shouyou was the grandson of Duke of Zhuangxiang and the claws andteeth of Zhang. Therefore Zhang promoted him to an especially high rank.(WLYHB, 21.536)

Under Zhang’s wings, Liu from Macheng accelerated to a conspicuous noble-man status. (WLYHB, 18.464)

When Zhang monopolized state control, he empowered his townsman LiuShouyou, the Grand Mentor of the Heir Apparent, to lead the guard as hisheart and backbone. When Censors Fu Yingzhen (jinshi 1571) and Liu Tai(jinshi 1571) demonized Zhang, the Zhang supporters relied on LiuShouyou to reconcile the judical case and argue for Zhang. (WLYHB, 21.535)

In these passages, Shen sympathizes with Liu’s quandary; he explains that Liu had astrong personal bond with Zhang because they both originated from the Chu region,and because Zhang elevated Liu to high positions. The same affinity existed betweenZhang and Liu’s lieutenant Shi Jishu, who also descended from a prestigious familyand as early as March, 1578 had escorted Zhang to his hometown to mourn thedeath of Zhang’s father.74 Even after Zhang’s tragic failure, Liu and Shi mobilizedall the means available to them to vindicate Zhang’s honor. The guards expressedtheir gratitude by helping Zhang’s sons to elude Wanli’s extortion. In their contem-poraries’ eyes, the withholding of Zhang’s assets by the guards could be interpretedas repaying his favors.Shen further unveils the psyche of the guards who risked siding with Zhang’s

family to deceiveWanli, but did not spare Feng. Before Liu took the guard commanderposition, his superintendent Zhu Xixiao customarily had to kowtow before Feng.After Zhu’s death, Liu, his successor, had to comply with the same tradition. InShen’s words:

When I was a child, I heard that in every meeting Liu Shouyou had to bowbefore the head of eunuchs from the Eastern Depot [Feng Bao]. After returninghome, Liu’s face turned pale as ash. Because Liu grew up in an educated family,he was reluctant to be a slave [of Feng]. But why did Liu not act differentlyfrom Zhu, the former guard commander? It is my speculation that Liu hadto depend on the eunuch [Feng] to acquire the leadship of the guard whenthe eunuch dominated the state. (WLYHB, 21.537)

Similarily, Wang Shizhen’s account divulges the predicament the guards suffered.75

Between Zhang’s death and Feng’s disgrace (June, 1582–December, 1582), Liu andhis guardsmen bowed before Feng to seek refuge from Wanli. The metaphoricalenslavement of the masculine guards kowtowing before a eunuch would ultimatelyhave bound the guards together to carry out Feng’s property confiscation after heran out of luck.

34 HUIPING PANG

Liu’s actions interfered with his duty to the emperor on several occasions.76 Aseulogized by Shen, Liu saved the lives of five officials who had affronted Wanliand were sentenced to open-court floggings. Before performing the punishment,Liu ordered his subordinates not to beat the offenders to death (WLYHB,21.535). According to Shen, no matter how much authority Wanli wielded, Liucould stand outside the sphere of their power and make decisions at his own discre-tion (WLYHB, 21.535). As in Zhang’s case, Liu followed his own sense of justicerather than what he saw as the ruler’s unjust mandate.Liu and his guardsmen’s defiance of Wanli inspired late Ming novelists, who sym-

pathized with their actions and sense of justice. The literati playwrights applaudedhow Liu, the valiant guard, took vigorous measures to rescue beleaguered friendsfrom imperial prisons. The literati vividly recalled these friends’ reliance on Liu tomitigate their punishment in judicial trials: when Tu Long was demoted from hisBeijing office to a commoner in 1584, Liu, the muscular guard with heroic physiog-nomy, defended Tu (Tu, 1590: 18.546). When eight members of Tu’s family sufferedfrom starvation, Liu proceeded to act as their patron (Tu, 1590: 2.333 and 18.546).Tang Xianzu’s letter to Liu evinces that Tang received financial support from Liu inBeijing around 1584.77 Liu also gifted Wang Shizhen and Shimao with refinedincense and fish, and successfully restored the diminished posthumous prestige ofWang’s father.78 In return, upon hearing that Liu and Shi were caught in judicialtrouble, the Wang brothers sent letters to them to express their empathy, praisingtheir chivalrous actions and voicing hope that the punishment would be mitigatedsoon.79 The literati composed poems for Liu, but hid his identity while weavingtales about the guards’ thievery. As recalled by Liu’s son, these comrades in times oftribulation never abandoned their friendship with Liu (see ZhouNianzu, 1611: 1.199).Liu’s circle was influenced by the Macheng intellectual movement that promoted

personal autonomy and individualism; this entanglement provides another possibleexplanation for Liu’s affront to the emperor. The Macheng area at the time wit-nessed frequent philosophical debates between the Taizhou-school thinker Li Zhiand the conservative Confucians (Rowe, 2007: 94–96). Lecturing, writing in avariety of genres, and embracing ideas from Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism,Li resided in the Macheng-Huangan vicinity for twenty years, c. 1581–1600.80Iconoclastic and nonconformist, Li advocated heroism and individualism, instruct-ing individuals to follow their nature without being restricted by hypocriticalConfucian dogma. He praised rebel heroes found in novels as being truly faithful(e.g. the protagonist Song Jiang in The Water Margin), because their hearts weredevoted to their friends.81 Such individualism — which would later be attackedby censors as dangerous, contaminating, and subversive — encouraged the searchfor heroes: men who were gallant, impetuous, and ready to break the bonds of con-vention (De Bary, 1970: 208). Li’s preachings attracted a flood of supporters fromLiu’s circle. Mei Danran (Mei Guozhen’s third daughter, who was betrothed toLiu Chengxi) tonsured herself as a nun to obtain advice from Li.82 Liu’s relatives,such as Mei Guozhen, Mei’s first daughter Shanyin (b. 1550s), her husband LiuChengqi, poet Madam Mao Yulong (who married Liu’s brother Shoumeng), andQiu Changru (who married Liu’s sister), also sought advice from Li.83 Liu’s literatifriends, the renowned Tang Xianzu,84 Yuan Hongdao, Yuan Zhongdao (1570–1626),85 and Feng Menglong, often sojourned with Li in Macheng.86 To associateLiu’s philosophical outlook with the Macheng intellectual movement of libertinism

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 35

is not to argue that the latter was responsible for Liu’s larceny. Rather, the widelyheld desire for intellectual autonomy could have provided Liu a license to transcendhis sense of loyalty and defy Wanli.

CONCLUSION

Thus far we have examined how Liu and his guardsmen sided with the disgracedministers’ families to hide treasures from Wanli to maintain their own view ofjustice. How did Liu’s contemporaries and posterity judge his actions? After his dis-charge from Beijing in November, 1588, Liu returned to his hometown of Macheng,enjoying a wealthy lifestyle for the remaining twenty years of his life (WLYHB,21.535). The 1795 edition of Macheng County Gazetteer articulated the magnifi-cence of his manor in Macheng, and how Dong Qichang and other celebrities fre-quently sojourned there:

Surrounding the manor was an exquisite garden, garlanded with thrivingforest and tall bamboo […] Among the buildings was a hall, which carriedthe plaque Yule tang (Hall of Elated Fish) inscribed by Dong Qichang. Celeb-rities leisurely roamed and chanted there, where flowers bloomed in all fourseasons. Flutes and pipes were played day and night; singing boys anddancing girls competed with their beauty […]. Holding a wine jar and climbingto a high spot, mountains and rivers came into view. This estate displayed theutmost prosperity and splendor of the time. (QLMCXZ, shang 5.74)

Two other editions of theMacheng County Gazetteer in 1882 and 1932 complemen-ted the earlier version, specifying that the lavish manor belonged to “theEmbroidered-Uniform Guard Liu Shouyou.”87 These accounts disclose the extrava-gance of Liu’s estate, which necessitated expenditures in labor and land taxes that hecould not have afforded with his regular official wage. Liu accumulated so muchwealth that, even two generations after his death, his family still owned thelargest slave population in the Macheng precinct — approximately 3,000–4,000household servants (Xu Zi, 1861: 2.50). He must have earned extra profits else-where to afford the expenses that included servants, singers, musicians, and repeatedbanquets for celebrities.How did Liu acquire that extra income? Art collectors Dong Qichang and Chen

Jiru recalled that Liu pawned to different collectors (e.g. Dong, Wu Fuzhai) severalholdings, including a Han-dynasty jade cup and Tang-Song paintings.88 On someoccasions, Liu consigned his trusted friend, General Wang Siyan, to convert artinto cash.89 Since seals of Liu and his son both appear on painter Li’s (c. 1170)Dream Journey through the Xiao and Xiang Rivers, we can ascertain that thework was first acquired by the father, not the son. Parts of Liu Shouyou’s paintingcollection, such as theDream Journey and the eighth-century Dai Song’sOxherds inthe Misty Countryside, passed through the hands of Liu’s son and General Wang,who was later banished to the frontier due to his embroilment in Liu’s case (seeGXMCXZ, 18.255). The art dealer Wu Qizhen (1607–77) recorded that LiGonglin’s painting Lotus Society, which once fell into Liu Shouyou’s hands, waslater sold to Chengxi’s friend Wu Ting (1555–1626) and priced at 1,000 taels of

36 HUIPING PANG

silver during the late Ming era (see Wu, 1677: 5.421). Based on this evidence, we candeduce that Liu and his son used art as a source for additional income.Liu probably died around 1604–05. Tang Xianzu’s elegy for Mei Guozhen

(d. May 15, 1605) reveals that Liu had died recently.90 Even after Liu’s death, hisproperty was never commandeered by Wanli, who therefore never found the artpieces missing from Feng and Zhang’s houses. As the late Ming official SunChengze concluded, throughout the Ming, only three guard commanders — LuBing, Zhu Xixiao, and Liu Shouyou — rose to the most exalted 1a rank of bothmilitary and civil official titles (Sun, 63.192). All three accrued their wealththrough subtracting treasures during their guard duties, but only Liu avoided thepunishment. Witnessing the imperial favor showered upon Liu, civil officialsscrambled for the now sought-after guard positions, remunerative posts that,according to Shen Defu, had formerly been disdained by civil officials as inferiorto their own before Liu’s time (WLYHB, 21.536). After the Liu case, descendantsof the civil officials competed to obtain guard posts, as they now saw a guardcareer as a tempting route to wealth and power (WLYHB, 21.536). The legal loop-holes of confiscation enabled personal enrichment for the guards and proximity tothe emperor, who naturally trusted his personal bodyguards, but saw his primeministers as potential opponents.The case study of Liu and his guardsmen complicates the historical bias of the

guards by elucidating their ethical dilemmas and the competing loyalties to whichthey were subjected. This paper further contributes to cultural studies of the Mingin four ways. First, through the lens of multiple confiscation events, my research pro-vides a more differentiated understanding of the position of the guards within imper-ial collecting culture, especially as their actions reflected the influence of late Mingpolitical and intellectual movements. Second, the art historical inquiry into the trans-portation of seized art provides historians with a detailed account of how a syndicateof confiscators from central and prefectural governments collaborated to seize prop-erty of a deposed grand secretary (Pang, 2014: 364; 2015a: 125–27). Third, currentscholarship has focused on Liu Chengxi’s identity as a literati-collector whoexchanged artworks and rare books with his literati friends for purely aestheticappreciation (Ma, 2001: 289–98). My research reveals the secret provenance ofChengxi’s impressive art holdings: at least a proportion of them were acquiredunder the table by his father Shouyou. The father, not the son, was the firstmember of the Liu family who embarked on the art collecting enterprise. Fourth,by interrogating Liu’s moral justification for defying Wanli and how this violationevinces a microcosm of the guard culture, this paper draws issues of legality,power dynamics, and secret dealings into the study of late Ming collecting culture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In 2013 and 2014, I presented two papers about Liu Shouyou’s family lineage and sociopo-litical connections at the following conferences: (1) Association for Asian Studies AnnualMeeting (San Diego, March 24, 2013), where I presented “Textual-Visual Dissonance:Dong Qichang’s Poems Complementing His Painting Reading in the Mountain Niu,” and(2) Young Scholars’ Forum in Chinese Studies (Hong Kong: Chinese University of HongKong, June 2014), where I gave a talk entitled “The Confiscating Henchmen: The Dilemmaand Masquerade of Ming Embroidered-Uniform Guard Liu Shouyou.” I am deeply indebtedto Professors Richard Vinograd, Ronald Egan, Albert Dien, Ihor Pidhainy, the Ming Studies

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 37

reviewers, and Annalisa Bolin for their productive suggestions. Thanks also to the StanfordGeballe Dissertation Prize Fellowship and Mellon Foundation Dissertation Fellowship,which supported my research at Stanford University.

ABBREVIATIONS

Dates follow the Chinese lunar calendar in the following form: “year/month/date.”

CB Zhou Shengkai. sixteenth century Chu Bao (Treasure of the ChuRegion). Jinan: Qilu shushe, 1996.

DLZL Wen Bing (1609–69). Dingling zhulue (A Brief Note on the WanliReign). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2004.

MGZJ Ling Lichao, comp. 2006.Mei Guozhen ji (Collected Writings of MeiGuozhen). Wuhan: Hubei renmin chubanshe.

MS Zhang Tingyu (1672–1755) et al. Mingshi (History of Ming). Taipei:Dingwen shuju, 1975.

GQ Tan Qian. 1656. Guoque (Evaluation of the Work of Our Dynasty).Beijing: Guji chubanshe, 1958.

GXMCXZ Lu Youqin, comp. 1882. Guangxu Macheng xianzhi (GuangxuEdition of Macheng County Gazetteer). Macheng: Gazetteer office,1999.

GXHZFZ Zheng Chen, comp. 1884. Guangxu Huangzhou fuzhi (GuangxuEdition of Huangzhou Prefectural Gazetteer). Taipei: Chengwenchubanshe, 1976.

KXMCXZ QuZhenqi, comp. 1670.KangxiMacheng xianzhi (Kangxi Edition ofMacheng County Gazetteer). Macheng: Gazetteer office, 1999.

MGMCXZ Yu Jinfang. 1935. Mingguo Macheng xianzhi (Mingguo Edition ofMacheng County Gazetteer). Hankou: Zhongya yinshuguan.

QLMCXZ Jiang Tingming, comp. 1795. Qianlong Macheng Xianzhi (QianlongEditionofMachengCountyGazetteer).Macheng:Gazetteeroffice, 1999.

WLYHB Shen Defu. 1619.Wanli yehuo bian (Harvested in the Wild during theWanli Period). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1980.

WLDC Qian Yiben, comp. 1617. Wanli dichao (Beijing Gazette of the WanliPeriod). Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1969.

WLSC Wu Liang, ed. 1609. Wanli shuchao (Memorials of the Wanli Court).Facsimile of 1609 print.

WLHD Shen Shixing, eds. 1587. Wanli huidian (Collected Statutes of theWanli Reign). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989.

YSTBJ Wang Shizhen. 1590. Yanshan tang bieji (A Special Anthology fromthe Yanshan Studio). Beijing: Zhonghuashuju, 1985.

JYNSZ Wang Shizhen. c. 1590. Jiajing yilai neige shoufu zhuan (Biographiesof Senior Grand Secretaries since the Jiajing Period). Beijing: Zhon-ghua shuju, 1991.

MTJ Xia Xie. 1873.Ming tongjian (ComprehensiveMirror of Governmentunder the Ming). Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 1999.

MSZS Gu Bingqian (1550–c. 1629) et al. Ming Shenzong shilu (VeritableRecords of Ming Shenzong). Taipei: Institute of History and Philol-ogy, Academia Sinica, 1984.

38 HUIPING PANG

APPENDIX 1

CONFISCATORS AND DISGRACED FENG-ZHANG ASSOCIATES

Date ofConfiscation

Victims Confiscators and their Departments

December 8,1582

Feng Bao and his associates:Feng You, Zhang Dashou,Zhou Hai, He Zhong, HeZhong, Liu Zhong, Liu Ding,Yang Zhou, WangMing, andLi Zhong

Embroidered-UniformGuard

Liu Shouyou and hisguardsmen

Directorate of Ceremonial Eunuchs Zhang Jing, TianYu, Zhang Bin, Yang Zhu,Huang Xun, and Chen Ju(1539–1607)

Registrar Sun Zheng (1580s)

January 11,1583

Feng Bangning, Xu Jue Embroidered-UniformGuard

Liu Shouyou and hisguardsmen (e.g. Li Tinglu,Zhang Zhao, Guo Shangyou,Pang Qing, Feng Xin, JiaoLan, and Ma Lu)

Eunuch of the Office ofFuel

eunuch Yao Zhong; Yao’snephew Deng Xun

Stage 1: April9, 1584to July6, 1584

Stage 1: Zhang Juzheng’ssons Jingxiu, Sixiu, and tenother offspring

Embroidered-UniformGuard

Jia Yingkui et al.

Stage 2:August 17,1584 toSeptember27, 1584

Stage 2: Zhang’s relativesJuyi, Shunshu; householdservant Zhang Shu, andZhang’s partisans ZengShengwu, Fu Zuozhou, GaoZhijin, Wang Ji, TangYingyun, and Wang Zhuan

Minister of Punishment Qiu Shun.Supervising Secretary Yang Tingxiang (1523–1601)Directorate of Ceremonial Eunuch Zhang ChengJingzhou Prefect Hao Rusong and his menInspecting Censor ofHuguang Circuit

Li Jiang (d. 1598)Ren Yangxin (1557–1617)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chan Hok-Lam. 1980. Li Zhi (1527–1602) in Contemporary Chinese Historiography: NewLights on His Life and Works. White Plains, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

Chen Jiru. 1590s. Nigu lu (Record of Fondness for Antiquity). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshu-guan, 1936.

Chen Jiru. 1595. Taiping Qinghua (ClearWords From a Peaceful World). Shanghai: Shangwuyinshuguan, 1936.

Chen Shilong. 2011a. Wanli Zhangfu chaojiashi shuwei: yi Qiu Shun Wangjing lou yigao weizhuyao shiliao (A Detailed Account of Wanli’s Confiscation of Family Estates of Zhang:On the Basis of Qiu Shun’s Wangjinglou yigao). Journal of Chinese Studies, 53: 109–35.

Chen Shilong. 2011b. Qiu Shun Wangjing lou yigao zoushu liangpian (Two Memorials fromQiu Shun). Mingdai yanjiu, 17: 187–91.

Cui Xian. 1523. Huanci. SKQS Zhenben.De Bary, Wm. Theodore. 1970. Individualism and Humanitarianism in Late Ming Thought.

In: Self and Society in Ming Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.Gao Gong. 1578. Gongwen xianggong ji (Collected Works of Gao Gong). Siku cunmu

congshu, jibu 108.Hsia, C. T. 1970. Time and the Human Condition in the Plays of T’ang Hsien-tsu. In: De Bray,

ed. Self and Society in Ming Thought. New York: Columbia University Press.Hu Yang. 2008. Jinyi wei (Embroidered-Uniform Guard). Harbin: Harbin chubanshe.Huang Lin. 1993. Zaitan Liu Jinwu yu Tu Long ji FengMenglong.Wenxue yichan, 2: 123–24.

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 39

Huang, Ray. 1981. 1587: AYear of No Significance.NewHaven and London: Yale UniversityPress, 1981.

Hucker, Charles. 1996. The Censorial System of Ming China. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

Jiang Dongzhi. c. 1599. Ruiyang a-ji (Collected Writings of Jiang Dongzhi). SKQS. ce 167.Jiang, Jin. 2001. Heresy and Persecution in Late Ming Society: Reinterpreting the Case of Li

Zhi. Late Imperial China, 22(2): 1–34.Kong Zilai. 1650. Shunzhi Jiangling zhiyu. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 2001.Li Xu. 1592. Jiean laoren manbi (Notes of the Old Man Jiean). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,

1997.Li Zhi. 1590. Fenshu (A Book to Burn). Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2000.Li Zhi. 1618. Xu fenshu (A Book to Burn Continued). Posthumously published in 1618.

Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2000.Lian Qiyuan. 2001. Mingdai de yuzheng guanli (The Organization of the Ming Prison).

Yilang: Xueshu foundation.Liu Hong. 2006. Jinpingmei shucheng Macheng (Jinpingmei was Completed in Macheng).

Huanggang shifan xueyuan xuebao, 26(2): 6–11.Long Wenbin. 1887. Ming huiyao (Collected Institutions of the Ming). Taipei: Shijie shuju,

1966.Ma Tailoi. 2001. Yuqing zhai zhuren Wu Ting yu jinyi Liu Chengxi: wan Ming er shuhua

shoucangjia zhuanlue (Wu Ting and the Embroidered-Uniform Guard Liu Chengxi: ABiographical Sketch of Two Art Collectors in the Late Ming Period). In: Mingren wenjiyu Mingdai yanjiu (Ming Literati Collections and Ming Studies). Taipei: Mingdai yanjiuxuehui.

Macheng Liushi zongpu (Genealogy of the Liu Lineage of Macheng). 1944. In: Hong, ed.Guanyu Jinpingmei zuizao shoucang zhe de buzheng. Wenxue yichan, 3(1989): 113–15.

Macheng Meishi zupu (Genealogy of the Mei Lineage of Macheng). 1926.Miao Yuezao. 1733. Yuyi lu (Record of Entertained Thoughts). Shanghai: Chunhua guan,

1840.Pang, Huiping. 2012. Stolen Art and Lost Inscriber: Reconstructing Artwork Inventory Codes

in the Tumultuous Wanli Period. Artibus Asiae, 73(2): 399–441.Pang, Huiping. 2014. The Multiple Half Seals: Reconsidering the Dianli jicha si (1373–1384)

Argument. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 134(3): 361–84.Pang, Huiping. 2015a. Art Confiscations and Cultural Diplomacy: The Ming (1368–1644)

Imperial Inventory System at Work. Stanford: Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.Pang, Huiping. 2015b. Competition and Confiscation: The Half Seal Networks in Late Ming

Imperial China. Artibus Asiae, 75(2), in press.Qiu Shun. 1585. Wangjing lou yiwen (Works of Qiu Shun). Manuscript. Rare book

Collection, National Library of China.Robinson, David. 2013. Martial Spectacles of the Ming Court. Cambridge and London:

Harvard University Press.Roy, David. 1986. The Case of T’ang Hsien-tsu’s Authorship of the Jin Ping Mei. Chinese

Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews, 8(1/2): 31–62.Ryor, Kathleen. 2009. Wen and Wu in Elite Cultural Practices during the Late Ming. In:

Military Culture in Imperial China. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Shen Shixing. 1590. Zhaodui lu (Record of Court Audiences). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshu-

guan, 1936.Shu Hua. 1585. Wenxin tiaoli (Ad hoc Provisions for Trying Penal Cases). Beijing: Falu chu-

banshe, 1999.Sun Chengze 1592–1676. Chunming mengyu lu (Record of Dreams of the Capital). SKQS. ce

868.

40 HUIPING PANG

Sun Kuang 1542–1613. Shuhua baba (Colophons on Calligraphy and Painting). Taipei:Hanhua wenhua chubanshe, 1971.

Swope, Kenneth. 2003. All Men are not Brothers: Ethnic Identity and Dynastic Loyalty in theNingxia Mutiny of 1592. Late Imperial China, 24(1): 79–129.

Swope, Kenneth. 2008. Bestowing the Double-edged Sword: Wanli as Supreme MilitaryCommander. In: David Robinson, ed. Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The MingCourt. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Asia Center.

Tan Qian 1594–1657. Zaolin zazu (Miscellany of the Jujube Grove). Beijing: Zhonghuashuju, 2009.

Tsai, ShihshanHenry. 1996. The Eunuchs in theMing Dynasty.NewYork: State University ofNew York.

Tu Long. 1590. Qizhen guanji (Collected Works of Tu Long). Xuxiu SKQS. ce 1360.Wang Qiao 1521–99. Fanglu ji (Collected Works of Wang Qiao). SKQS. ce 1285.Wang, Richard. 2012. The Ming Prince and Daoism: Institutional Patronage of an Elite.

New York: Oxford University Press.Wang Shizhen. 1937. Gubugu lu (Record of the Decadent Chalice). In: Congshu jicheng

chubian. Taipei: Shangwu yinshuguan.Wang Shizhen. 1584. Yanzhou xugao (Further Manuscripts of Yanzhou). SKQS. ce.Wang Shizhen. 1991. Zhanggong Juzheng zhuan (Biography of Zhang Juzheng). In: Jiao

Hung (1541–1620). Guochao xianzheng lu(Record of the Outstanding Predecessors ofOur Dynasty). Taipei: Mingwen shuju.

Wang Shimao. 1997. Wang Fengchang ji (Collected Works of Wang Fengchang). Tainan:Zhuangyan wenhua shiye.

Wang Shimao. Futai ji (Collected Works of Wang Shimao). Harvard-Yenching Microflim FC4876.

Wanli qijuzhu (Court Diaries of the Wanli Era). 1615. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe,1988.

Wen Zhaozhi, comp. 1519–87. Wenshi wujia ji (Collected Works of the Wen Family). SKQSzhenben. ce 227.

Rowe, William. 2007. Crimson Rain: Seven Centuries of Violence in a Chinese County.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Wu Han. 1934. Hu yinglin nianpu (Chronicle of Hu Yinglin). Qinghua xuebao, 9(1): 1–71.Wu Qizhen. 1677. Shuhua ji (Notes on Calligraphy and Painting). Beijing: Renmin meishu

chubanshe, 2006.Xie Zhaozhe. 1608.Wu zazu (Five Miscellaneous Groups). Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 2005.Xu Shuofang, ed. 1982. Tang xianzu shiwen ji (Collected Prose and Poetry of Tang Xianzu).

Shanghai: Guji chubanshe.Xu Zi. 1861. Xiaotian jinian (Chronicle of a Small Country). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1957.Yu Jideng. 1601.Diangu jiwen (Literary Allusions and Anecdotes). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju,

1997.Yu Shenxing. 1613. Gushan bichen (Desultory Notes of Master Gushan). Beijing: Zhonghua

shuju, 1997.Yuan Zhongdao 1570–1626. Youju shilu (Anthology of Yuan Zhongdao). In: Riji sizhong.

ed. Chen Wenxin. Taipei: Chongwen shuju, 2004.Zhan Jingfeng. 1591. Dongtu xuanlan bian (Dongtu’s Notes on Masterpieces of Art and

Calligraphy). In: Zhongguo shuhua quanshu 4. Shanghai: Shuhua chubanshe, 1992.Zhang Zhao, eds. 1744. Shiqu baoji (Treasured Boxes of the Stone Moat). Shanghai:

Shanghai shudian chubanshe, 2011.ZhouNianzu, ed. 1611.Wanli xinhai jingcha jishi shimo. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe,

2002.

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 41

Zhou Yongchun 1573–1639. Silun lu (Record of Silk Ribbon). In: Siku jinhui shu congkan(Collectanea of Works Prohibited by the Four Treasuries Project). Beijing: Beijing chu-banshe, 1998.

Zhu Guozhen. 1621. Yongzhuang xiaoping (Trifles from the Erectable Study). Shanghai: Gujichubanshe, 2005.

Zou Shilin ed. 1786. Tianshui bingshan lu (Record of Heaven’s Water Melting the Iceberg).Zhibu zuzhai congshu.

ENDNOTES

1 A “guard unit” means a military districtwith about 5,600 soliders under thecommand of a guard commander. SeeTsai, 1996: 61.

2 Sun Chengze, 63.195 [juan 63, p. 195].3 Tsai, 1996: 61; Ryor, 2009: 220.4 During this time, the guards were auth-orized to make their own legal judg-ments, rather than passively waitingfor imperial instructions. This indepen-dence gave them additional power thatdistinguished them from the rank-and-file of the secret police. See WLYHB,21.532; Yu Shenxing, 1613: 1.3; SunChengze, 7.86 and 63.193. See also Tsai,1996: 61; Robinson, 2013: 94–95.

5 Hucker describes that the guard “main-tained a special palace prison thatbecame, especially in late Ming times,a feared torture chamber.” See Hucker,1966: 44. For modern scholars’ com-parison of the guards to demons, seeLian, 2001: 148; and Hu, 2008: 87.

6 For example, Lu Bing married his twodaughters to sons of senior grand sec-retaries: one to Yan Song’s son Shifan(1513–65); the other to Xu Jie’s secondson. Liu Shouyou’s son married to agreat-granddaughter of Xu. SeeWLYHB, buyi, 1.811; and WLYHB,21.535.

7 For Wanli’s competition with his grandsecretaries, see Pang, 2012: 431–33;Pang, 2015b: forthcoming.

8 Liu’s exact birth and death dates areunrecorded; I approximate both datesbased on WLYHB, 8.214; 21.536;21.537.

9 Li Xu, 1592: 8.325; and Huang, 1981:33.

10 All dates taken from the Ming VeritableRecords are given according to theChinese lunar calendar. Feng wasousted to Nanjing in 1582/12 and diedin January, 1583. See WLDC, 141;MS, 20.268; GQ, 72.4430; YSTBJ,100.1914; and MTJ, 67.1904.

11 Wanli suggested Censors Li Zhi (jinshi1577), Jiang Dongzhi (d. 1599), andYang Keli (1536–95) to impeach Fengand Zhang in order to seize their treas-ures. See WLYHB, 4.122; 6.169;9.234; MSZSL, 131.2436; 131.2440;YSTBJ, 100.1914; Jiang Dongzhi,1599: 9; WLSC, 20.1; 6.29; DLZL,1.24; and MTJ, 68.1920.

12 WLHD, 178.906; and Ming huiyao,65.1250; 65.1252; and 66.1279.

13 WLYHB, 8.206; WLHD, 177.903 and178.906.

14 This article was promulgated byEmperor Hongwu (r. 1368–98) andreiterated by Wanli. See WLHD,174.885; and Shu, 1585: 406. See alsoYu Jideng, 1601: 10.174.

15 GXHZFZ, 20.721; QLMCXZ, shang12.143; 15.164; and GXMCXZ,18.260.

16 KXMCXZ, 2.31; 6.65; 7.76;QLMCXZ, shang 6.84; 6.89; 10.110;10.114; 12.129; 15.165; QLMCXZ,xia 4.353; GXMCXZ, 4.80; 14.204;18.242; Cui, 1523: 3.16; Yu Jideng,1601: 17.314. See also Rowe, 2007: 81.

17 WLYHB, 15.399; QLMCXZ, shang12.154; GXMCXZ, 14.205;GXHZFZ, 15.537; 18.655; andMGMCXZ, 8.32; 9.31.

18 KXMCXZ, 6.72; QLMCXZ, shang15.165; GXMCXZ, 17.232;

42 HUIPING PANG

GXHZFZ, 18.657; and MGMCXZ,8.3.

19 Tu, 1590: 2.332; Macheng Liushizongpu, 115.

20 KXMCXZ, 7.82; QLMCXZ, shang15.165; and GXMCXZ, 18.264.

21 MSZSL, 131.2436; 131.2473; DLZL,1.25; Wanli qijuzhu, ce 2, 317; GQ,71.4426; 72.4429; WLSC, 20.10; MS,220.7803; 305.7802; and YSTBJ,100.1914.

22 MTJ, 67.1904; 68.1914; and MS,305.7803.

23 Gushan bichen, 5.53; and MTJ,67.1905.

24 Xie, 1608: 15.1817; WLDC, 248;MSZSL, 137.2555; and MS, 305.7803.

25 Lu Kun’s (1536–1618) memorial toWanli described Feng’s possessions. SeeWLSC, 1.168.

26 Gao, 1578: 44.9; and Fanglu ji, 15.73.27 MSZSL, 132.2454; GQ, 72.4429; and

MS, 305.7803.28 MSZSL, 132.2454; and GQ, 72.4429.29 Shuhua baba, 2.140. After Gao’s death,

Zhang received his antique vessels, seeGushan bichen, 4.42.

30 Gubugu lu, no page number; JYNSZ,7.103.

31 WLYHB, 4.122; 23.591;WLDC, 244–245; 258; DLZL, 1.28; MTJ, 68.1913;MSZSL, 148.2756; JYNSZ, 8.124;GQ, 72.4474; Silun lu, li (rites), 631;and CB, 3.42.

32 MSZSL, 131.2436; 131.2473; andDLZL, 1.28.

33 MSZSL, 148.2757; JYNSZ, 8.124;Fanglu ji, 15.73; WLDC, 244–45; GQ,72.4474; DLZL, 1.28; Silun lu, xin(punishment), 700; CB, 3.42; and MS,213.5651; 226.5936; Qiu, 1585: 4. Seealso Chen Shilong, 2011a: 113; andChen Shilong, 2011b: 187–91.

34 WLDC, 244–45; DLZL, 1.31; GQ,72.4476; and MSZSL, 151.2802.

35 MSZSL, 151.2802; WLYHB, 19.493;DLZL, 1.31; CB, 3.42; MTJ, 68.1913;GQ, 72.4476; the appendix of Gushanbichen, 219; and Chen Shilong, 2011a:117.

36 Qiu, 1585: 4; MTJ, 68.1913; MSZSL,149.2778; WLYHB, 8.212; JYNSZ,

8.125; WLDC, 244–45; Li Xu, 1592:8.327;DLZL, 1.31; andMS, 213.5651.

37 MTJ, 68.1913; WLYHB, 8.212;JYNSZ, 8.125; GQ, 72.4476; MS,213.5651; and Kong, 1650: 461. Seealso Chen Shilong, 2011a: 109–35.

38 See Liu Yixiang’s (1542–1624) memor-ial to Wanli, in WLSC, 6.32; andMSZSL, 151.2802.

39 WLSC, 18.15; 18.20; WLYHB, 9.233;18.472; WLYHB, buyi, 2.836; andMSZSL, 131.2440. Prince of Liao col-lected art scrolls, Daoist scriptures, andprints. He at times commissioned paint-ings. See Wang, 2012: 77–78.

40 See Wang Shimao’s colophon toEmperor Huizong’s (r. 1100–25)Returning Boats on a Snowy River(Palace Museum, Beijing). See alsoJYNSZ, 8.125; and MS, 213.5651;226.5936.

41 WLSC, 20.8; MSZSL, 131.2438;DLZL, 1.22; WLDC, 130; GQ,71.442; MS, 232.6059; and ZhouShilin, 1786: appendix 2.

42 Shen, 1590: 5; WLDC, 259; WLYHB,9.228; Fanglu ji, 15.72; MS, 213.5651;236.6143; 305.7803; GQ, 72.4429;72.4430; 72.4479; 72.4483; and73.4524.

43 These partisans included ministers ZengShengwu (1532–82), Fu Zuozhou, GaoZhijin, Wang Ji, Tang Yingyun, andWang Zhuan (1519–1603). See Qiu,1585: 4 and 8; MSZSL, 151.2798;WLDC, 258–60; WLSC, 7.3; 19.5;WLYHB, 9.228; DLZL 1.24; 1.31;Silun lu, xin, 701. See also ChenShilong, 2011b: 190.

44 Qiu, 1585: 8. For torture of ZengShengwu and Wang Zhuan, see Zaolinzazu, 51.

45 CB, 3.42; WLYHB, 8.212; Wanliqijuzhu, ce 2, 509; and Chen Shilong,2011a: 127.

46 JYNSZ, 7.103; and Zhan, 1591: 1.11.47 Zhan, 1591: 1.1. Ma’s painting Odes of

Chen (the British Museum edition)carries seals of Liu’s son Chengxi. Forits transmission history, see Pang, 2015b.

48 Zhang, 1744: xubian (second series),4.460.

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 43

49 Gushan bichen, 6.63; and Miao, 1733:1.27.

50 WLYHB, buyi, 1.810 and 2.836; MTJ,66.1852; DLZL, 1.26; Silun lu, li 629;and MSZSL, 140.2614.

51 No document directly addresses why Liuwould impress his own seals on illegallyacquired art. Descending from a presti-gious military family and enjoyingimperial favor, Liu probably presumedthat his underground acquisitionswould never be discovered, and that thespecifics of which art pieces had beenstolen would not come to light. The joyof ownership might have outweighedthe fear of punishment, allowing Liu toimpress his seal. It is also possible thatLiu imprintedhis seals onart after his dis-missal from Beijing and returned to hishometown Macheng in 1588.

52 MS, 236.6143; WLDC, 259; MSZSL,151.2801.

53 WLYHB, 5.144; 8.218.54 KXMCXZ, 7.80; CB, 6.26; QLMCXZ,

shang 6.85; 16.174; GXMCXZ,14.210; 18.245; Swope, 2003: 108;and Swope, 2008: 83.

55 GXHZFZ, 15.543; Macheng Meishizupu, juan 1, no page number; MGZJ,3.111; WLYHB, 17.449; MGMCXZ,9.9; CB, 6.35; and Zhu, 1621: 23.3669.

56 Wen Zhaozhi (1519–87), 13.15.57 Li Zhi, 1590: 1.30. See also Liu, 2006: 8.58 Tu, 1590: 7.378. See also Huang Lin,

1993: 124.59 Ryor notices that, in the sixteenth

century, military men such as QiJiguang (1528–87) and Xu Wei (1521–93) increasingly engaged in poetry andart collecting. See Ryor, 2009: 226.Thanks to the Ming Studies reviewerfor this information.

60 Besides Liu, the following membersoften joined the poetry and wine clubin Beijing: Wang Shizhen, WangShimao, Li Weijing (1515–81), LiWeizhen (1547–1626), Ou Zhenbo(1516–95), Qiu Ruqian, Shen Sixiao(1542–1611), Li Weiyin (1542–99),Mei Guozhen, and Shi Jushu. Many ofthem were members of the “LaterSeven Literati” circle. See Yanzhou

xugao, 140.52; Wang Fengchang ji,9.10; 10.6; 15.23; 36.9; 38.17; andFutai ji, 1.11.

61 Tu, 1590: 2.332; and Xu, 1982: 6.160;6.166; 17.690; 48.1401.

62 Yanzhou xugao, 20.258; MGZJ, 4.191.63 MSZSL, 153.2840; and Huang, 1981:

41.64 KXMCXZ, 2.30; QLMCXZ, shang

6.89; GXMCXZ, 4.80; MGMCXZ,2.180; YSTBJ, 43.796.

65 YSTBJ, 42.782.66 QLMCXZ, shang 6.85; GXMCXZ,

8.118; MGMCXZ, 9.33; YSTBJ, 2.26;Wanli qijuzhu, ce 3, 99.

67 WLYHB, 6.169; MS, 305.7803; andMTJ, 67.1904.

68 MSZSL, 205.3828; and Silun lu, xin,704.

69 MSZSL, 205.3831; MTJ, 68.1937;DLZL, 2.9; Wanli qijuzhu, ce 3, 115.

70 MSZSL, 205.3833; 206.3841;218.4086; WLSC, 20.19; MS,305.7804; WLYHB, 6.170; Silun lu, li,638; and DLZL, 2.9.

71 WLYHB, 21.540; 6.170; MSZSL,205.3833; 206.3841; MTJ, 68.1937;MS, 305.7804; and DLZL, 2.9.

72 Tang transferred to a sinecure inNanjing, and Tu was downgraded tocivilian. See WLYHB, 25.644.

73 For Shi’s tie to Zhang, seeWLSC, 18.41;and JYNSZ, 8.112; 7.107.

74 CB, 3.37. See also Wang Shizhen,Zhanggong Juzheng zhuan, 17.82;17.88.

75 Gubugu lu, 11.76 WLYHB, 9.228; GQ, 72.4479; Fanglu

ji, 15.72; and MS, 213.5651.77 Xu, 1982, 6.160; 6.166; 17.690;

48.1401. See also Roy, 1986: 54.78 Yanzhou xugao, 205.885.79 Yanzhou xugao, 205.885; and Wang

Fengchang ji, 41.1.80 De Bary, 1970: 188–225; Chan, 1980:

3; Huang, 1981: 189; Jiang, 2001:3–22; and Rowe, 2007: 96–97.

81 Jiang, 2001: 11 and 20.82 Li Zhi, 1590: 2.73; 4.156; 4.171; 4.173;

and Li Zhi, 1618: 1.29.83 Li Zhi, 1590: 44; 2.61; 4.150; 4.173;

6.238; Li Zhi, 1618: 1.11; 2.58; 5.106;

44 HUIPING PANG

KXMCXZ, 8.94; 9.109; 10.138;GXMCXZ, 24.331; and MGZJ, 3.119.

84 For Tang’s tie to Li, see Hsia, 1970:249–88.

85 Yuan, 1.168–70; 3.198; and 10.267.86 WLYHB, 27.691; and MGZJ, appendix

321.87 GXMCXZ, 7.102; and MGMCXZ,

1.90.

88 Chen Jiru, 1590s: 4.53.89 Dong Qichang’s colophon to Dream

Journey through the Xiao and XiangRivers reveals that Liu sometimes entrustedGeneral Wang Siyan to sell Liu’s art col-lection. See Zhang, 1744: 2.525.

90 Xu, 1982: 17.690. See also the appendixof MGZJ, 222.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR

Huiping Pang holds PhD degrees from Stanford University and Beijing (Central Academic ofFine Arts) in the history of Chinese art. She received her postdoctoral fellowship from Smith-sonian Institution and currently teaches at University of Iowa. She has published twentyarticles in leading English and Chinese peer-reviewed journals on diverse topics, such astenth- to seventeenth-century Chinese institutional history, imperial patronage of art, andart collecting and politics.

Correspondence to: Huiping Pang. Email: huipingp@alumni.stanford.edu

THE CONFISCATING HENCHMEN 45