A visit to the Underworld in Polynesia M. Slobodník The Chinese Princess Wencheng in Tibet: A Cultural Intermediary between Facts and Myth1* Martin Slobodník Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Countries of East Asia, Faculty of Philosophy, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic Peace through matrimony has proved a stupid plan; Our princess was lost, not to return. Who has now taken our Kokonor? The western barbarians are like falcons, Well-fed and soaring. Du Fu 杜甫 (712-770), “Emergency” The aim of my contribution is to use the example of a specific historical event in order to illustrate the various perceptions and interpretations of it in a set of different ideological backgrounds. I have chosen the marriage of the Chinese Princess Wencheng 文成公主 (?-680) to Tibetan ruler in the 1st half of the 7th century to show the three modes of presentation of her stay in Lhasa and its historical and cultural context as they have been reflected on one side by her Chinese contemporaries, then by later Tibetan sources influenced by Buddhist perspective and finally the considerable reinterpretation of her mission in Tibet in the context of Chinese Marxist historiography and propaganda on Sino-Tibetan relations. The story of Princess Wencheng is but a short chapter of the larger complex of the 1400-years long history of Sino-Tibetan relations and an even smaller part of the long-term contacts between Imperial China and Inner Asia, but it illustrates some traditional patterns of contacts between China and her neighbours. Usually these problems are analysed primarily with the use of the voluminous Chinese sources but in this case the researcher has at his/her disposal also historical records of the other side, Tibetan side. Let me first briefly sketch out the historical background of the early 7th century in East Asia. During the 1st half of the 7th century two powerful regimes emerged in this part of the world. In 618 the emperor Gaozu 高祖 (r. 618-626) founded the Chinese Tang 唐 Dynasty which soon became one of the most mili1 The final version of this paper was written with the kind support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. * 267 Humboldt-Kolleg Dolná Krupá M. Gálik – T. Štefanovičová tarily and economically powerful empires in East Asia which was not an unusual situation for a Chinese ruling house. However, during the 1st half of the 7th century the Tibetan ruler Songtsen Gampo (srong btsan sgam po, 618?-650) was able to unite various tribes inhabiting the Tibetan plateau and for the first time established a centralized Tibetan empire (see Snellgrove – Richardson 1968: 2749). Tibetans soon became the strongest military enemies of Tang China and during the following two centuries they were able to conquer at the expense of China large territories in Inner Asia and in Chinese inland (Twitchett 2000: 143150). Due to the scale of military activities “the Tibetan problem was something quite unprecedented in earlier Chinese history” (Twitchett 2000: 113). To quote a Chinese historian describing the situation in this period: “in the territory of the western barbarians, Tibet [Chin. Tubo 吐蕃] is the strongest one. They [i.e. Tibetans] stealthily encroached upon their neighbouring countries and flew on the Chinese borders like eagles“ (JTS: 5267; Lee 1981: 168). By the period of the Tang Dynasty, the Chinese empire had worked out a complex mechanism for diplomatic dealings with foreigners. The traditional Chinese foreign policy, the foundations of which had emerged during the Han 漢 Dynasty (206 B. C. – A.D. 221) in the course of its dealings with the Xiongnu 匈奴 Empire2, included quite a wide spectrum of diplomatic, economic and military measures intended to prevent the opponent conquering China and it is referred to as the “tribute system”. As part of this system, already since the year 198 B. C. various Chinese emperors had established the so-called “marriage alliances” (Chin. heqin 和親) which included granting of Chinese princesses to the rulers of neighbouring states (Jagchid – Symons 1989: 141-164; Di Cosmo 2002: 193-205).3 In order to comprehend the stay of Wencheng in Tibet, it is important to note that the heqin policy was adopted in situations when the Chinese empire was harassed by a enemy who was militarily too powerful to deal with on the battlefield and this appeasement strategy had to postpone the immediate threat of invasion. It was not a long-term strategy and it often did not prevent an aggression. Moreover, the granting of a Chinese princess implied an equal status of the adversary and included rich gifts to the foreign ruling house (Di Cosmo 2002: 194). Therefore this strategy was quite controversial and often criticised by some Chinese officials who pointed to the fact that it was mere bribery and a sign of the military weakness of the dynasty. The Tang Dynasty official Liu Kuang 劉貺 while criticising this strategy put it quite bluntly: “our pretty girls are deflowered by foreigners, it is a great humiliation“ (XTS: 624; Slobodník 1995: 81). The Princess Wencheng was an involuntary actor in the heqin policy, as it is re2 3 Sometimes identified as the Huns who later – in 4th-5th centuries – harassed Europe. In classical Chinese literature one can find a number of poems attributed to these women (e.g. Princess Xijun 細君, 2nd-1st cent. B.C.; Cai Wenji 蔡文姬, 2nd-3rd cent. A.D.) who are lamenting over their sad fate among the uncivilized barbarians. For a collection of poems related to the stay of another Tang Princess, Jincheng 金城 (?-739), in Tibet see Benedikter 1965. 268 A visit to the Underworld in Polynesia M. Slobodník corded in Chinese official sources of the period. These sources were compiled with the aim of perpetuating the Sinocentric worldview, that is the image of Chinese emperor as the supreme ruler of the so-called All-under-Heaven (Chin. Tianxia 天 下, i. e. the whole world), who is in theory placed hierarchically above any other ruler. According to this worldview the role of the Emperor was to spread Chinese Civilisation and in this way to “tame” the “barbarians”. Princess Wencheng was also a part of this civilizing project. The oldest Chinese sources of the period, that is the Old History of the Tang Dynasty (Jiu Tangshu – JTS) and the New History of the Tang Dynasty (Xin Tangshu – XTS) compiled in the 10th and 11th century respectively, treat the marriage of Wencheng quite briefly. Nevertheless, it is possible to gain a picture of the circumstances surrounding this event. The Tibetan court was aware of the heqin policy towards Inner Asian rulers and in 634 and repeatedly in 638 requested the then Chinese emperor Tang Taizong to grant a consort also to the Tibetan king following the example of the rulers of the Tuyuhun4 吐谷渾 and the Turkic (Chin. Tujue 突厥) empires (JTS: 5221-5222). However this request, which came short after the establishment of official contacts between the Tang China and the Tibetan empire was refused. According to Chinese sources, the Tibetans blamed for this failure the interference of the ruler of the Tuyuhun (XTS: 6073). The Chinese refusal resulted in the intensification of Tibetan military activities in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands and the open threat of further invasion by the Tibetan ruler in case of another decline by the Chinese emperor: “if the great country [i. e. China] does not let their princess marry me, then we will invade the country right away“ (JTS: 5221; Lee 1981: 8). According to Chinese sources after a minor face-saving victory of the Chinese army, and the subsequent apology of the Tibetan ruler in 640 the emperor agreed with the second request of the Tibetan mission headed by the minister Gar Tongtsen Yulzung5 (mgar stong btsan yul bzung, ?-667) and granted the Tibetan ruler Princess Wencheng. However, from other Chinese sources we know that in the 630s the Tang Dynasty was engaged in lasting battles with both the Western Turkic empire and the Korean Koguryo kingdom. Thus the military threat of a Tibetan invasion into western China had to be postponed and the marriage of Wencheng to Tibet was a part of an appeasement strategy. As it was often the case in the heqin policy, Wencheng was not a daughter of the Emperor but a member of a minor branch of Tang royal family who was quickly given the title of Princess Wencheng (Twitchett 2000: 116; Tucci 1962: 121). In 641 she was accompanied by Chinese officials and the Tibetan envoy Gar Tongtsen Yulzung to Tibet.6 According to Chinese sources the King Songtsen Gampo met her halfway near the source of the Yellow River (Heyuan 4 5 6 In Tibetan Azha (‘a zha). A buffer state in the northeastern part of the Tibetan plateau. Later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century it was conquered by Tibetans (Beckwith 1987: 29-31). In Chinese sources we find his name as Ludongzan 祿東贊 (JTS: 5222) or Xueludongzan薛 祿東贊 (XTS: 6074). For the route between the Tang China and Tibet see Satō 1975. 269 Humboldt-Kolleg Dolná Krupá M. Gálik – T. Štefanovičová 河源) in today’s Qinghai 青海 Province. After meeting Wencheng the Tibetan king was impressed by the dresses, belongings, manners, the way of life of her and her Chinese entourage and consequently adopted Chinese customs and discarded the felt and leather clothes he and his court used before (JTS: 5222; XTS: 6074). Songtsen Gampo asked the Chinese emperor to accept sons of Tibetan aristocracy to the National University (Chin. Guoxue 國學) in the Tang capital Chang’an 長安 to study the Chinese classics (XTS: 6074) and several of them had later actually studied there (Tatz 1978: 11), and to dispatch Chinese literati to handle the official correspondence between the Tibetan and Chinese courts. Later in 649, when the emperor Gaozong 高宗 (r. 649-683) ascended the throne, Songtsen Gampo requested and was granted silk-worms, wine-makers, millstones, producer of paper and ink (JTS: 5222; XTS: 6074). Although Princess Wencheng is not explicitly mentioned, it is presumable, that the consent of the new Emperor was influenced by her presence in Tibet. In Chinese sources one cannot find any other mention of her life in Tibet except for the information on her death in 680 and a condolence mission dispatched to Tibet by the Emperor Gaozong (JTS: 5224). One can gain a little more complex picture of her stay in Lhasa from the very scarce Tibetan sources of the period. The Dunhuang 敦煌 annals record her arrival in Tibet and also the fact that Songtsen Gampo had more consorts (Wang – Chen 1992: 12, 145).7 Already in 632 he had married the Nepalese princess Bhrkutī Dēvī (Tib. khri btsun) and subsequently he married at least three other wives from Tibetan aristocratic families.8 Although there was a frequent dispatch of envoys between Lhasa and Chang’an and thus the Chinese court was informed about the developments in Central Tibet, the fact that Wencheng was only one of the consorts of Songtsen Gampo is not mentioned. As for the political role of Wencheng, till the middle of 7th century, that is till the death of Tang Taizong in 649 and Songtsen Gampo in 650, two crucial personages behind the marriage alliance, the situation in Sino-Tibetan borderlands was stabilized. However, in the 2nd half of the 7th century Tibetan empire continued its expansion in the eastern and north-western directions and was engaged in frequent military conflict with the Chinese Imperial army. The cultural influence of Wencheng is certainly exaggerated in the Tang sources and she embodies the traditional role of a missionary of Chinese civilizations among “barbarians”. According to records from the year 708 when the Tibetan court again requested a Chinese princess, the response of Chinese officials centred around the fact that the Tibetans wished to learn Chinese, which illustrates the fact that the Chinese cultural impact in Tibet was only limited (XTS: 6081). However, we know that during the Tang Dynasty the technique of printing and production of paper was disseminated to Tibet and in this process the contacts established by the intermarriage of the Chinese and Tibetan ruling 7 8 On the dating of the arrival of Wencheng and some other issues related to her stay in Tibet see Yamaguchi 1969 and Yamaguchi 1970. For a discussion on the wives of Songtsen Gampo see Tucci 1962. 270 A visit to the Underworld in Polynesia M. Slobodník houses in 641 certainly played an important role. The earliest Tibetan annals preserved in Dunhuang also show an influence of Chinese historiographic tradition and the Chinese tradition influenced the tradition of Tibetan divination and astrology (Tatz 1978: 12). However, in this formative period of the Tibetan civilization, Indian cultural influences were much more important. To sum up, though the Chinese Emperor Zhongzong 中宗 (r. 705-710) in the year 710 had praised Wencheng for civilizing Tibet (JTS: 5227), the treatment of her stay is only marginal in Tibetan sources and her sketchy picture as preserved in Chinese sources is to a large extent modelled upon the Sinocentric cliché of a Chinese missionary bringing Civilization to backward borderlands.9 Quite a different picture of Wencheng can be found in the Tibetan sources where she became a part of the Buddhist worldview which since the 10th-11th centuries had strongly influenced Tibetan society and culture. These sources dating mainly from the 11th to 14th centuries represent traditional Tibetan historical accounts written by individual “Tibetan Buddhist historians, who wrote from their own particular religious point of view” (Snellgrove – Richardson 1968: 17). This Buddhist background had to a large extent influenced also the perception of the Princess Wencheng and the treatment of her stay in Lhasa. These accounts consist of two layers of materials. The first layer comprises information obtained from the Chinese Old and New History of the Tang Dynasty, to which they are directly referring, and one can find a brief summary of the facts mentioned above.10 However, there is one significant addition: Princess Wencheng is in all Tibetan later sources credited with the bringing of the statue of the Buddha Śākyamuni (in Tibetan referred to as Jo bo) to Tibet, which according to Tibetan authors greatly contributed to the dissemination of Buddhism in Central Tibet, while the Nepalese princess played a similar role according to Tibetan tradition. The fact that Wencheng brought a statue of Buddha to Tibet is completely omitted in Chinese sources which might be explained by the fact that they were written by Confucian literati during a period of decline of Buddhist influence in China in the 10th and 11th centuries. This statue is the main deity of the central temple in Lhasa, the Jokhang (jo khang), which is the focal point of Tibetan Buddhism. Some of the Tibetan sources from the 11th to 14th century include abundant folk legends and offer a Buddhist vision of the early Tibetan history, according to which the founder of the empire, Songtsen Gampo, was the reincarnation of the Bōdhisattva Avalōkitēśvara, the embodiment of universal compassion who is considered by Tibetans to be the patron and protector of their country, and Wencheng is venerated as an emanation of the White Tārā (Tib. Drolkar, sgrol 9 Brief accounts on Wencheng and her stay in Central Tibet can be also found in some other sources for the Tang Dynasty period, but these records are modelled upon the JTS and XTS and do not provide any other significant details. See Wang 1955: 1730-1731; Su – Xiao 1981: 19-58; Su 1982: 1-30. 10 For these brief accounts see 14th century authors Tshal pa 1993: 18-19, Bu ston 1991: 182-183, and the 15th century author Dpal ’byor bzang po 1986: 65-67. 271 Humboldt-Kolleg Dolná Krupá M. Gálik – T. Štefanovičová dkar), the feminine consort of bōdhisattva Avalōkitēśvara. These sources – namely the 11th century “revealed treasure” (Tib. gter ma) Mani kabum (ma ni bka’ ‘bum) (Bacot 1935), the chronicle Gyelrab selwe melong (rgyal rabs gsal ba’i me long) by the 14th century historian Sönam Gyaltshen (bsod nams rgyal mtshan) (Sönam Gjalcchän 1998: 93-125) and the work Debther marpo sarma (deb ther dmar po gsar ma) (Tucci 1971: 146-148) – also include a fairy tale like epic description of the marriage of Wencheng where the Tibetan minister Gar Tongtsen Yulzung, who was involved in this process, plays the central role and it is due to his wit and persistence that Wencheng was granted to the Tibetan ruler. The Tibetan minister had to compete for Wencheng with envoys from several different kingdoms and in order to secure her marriage with his Tibetan king, he had to succeed in several tasks such as to thread a turquoise with a silk thread; to slaughter one hundred goats, to eat them and to turn their skins into leather; to match up one hundred mares and foals; and finally to single out the Princess Wencheng from three hundred similar beauties (Sönam Gjalcchän 1998: 97-103).11 The Chinese Emperor is depicted in a negative way as he was not willing to send his daughter to Tibet and according to these sources „in China there is not even one person who would like Tibet“(Sönam Gjalcchän 1998: 100). In contrast, Wencheng is portrayed in a positive way (except for some marginal notes on her initial disdain and prejudice towards Tibetans) and she is credited with bringing divination books, astrological manuals, medical treaties, advanced agricultural techniques, water mills as well as various handicrafts to Tibet. The account on Princess Wencheng is also briefly mentioned in later local chronicles, for instance in the History of the Doctrine in Amdo, where her passing through north-eastern Tibet is recorded, however the role of Tibetan minister Gar Tongtsen Yulzung is highlighted, as it is him who is credited with introducing water mills, building roads and subduing the malevolent Chinese demons who tried to stop the entourage on its way to Tibet (Brag dgon pa Dkon mchog bstan pa rab rgyas 1987: 15). The story of Wencheng as recorded in Gyelrab selwe melong was later, probably by the 15th-16th century, turned into a play of the Tibetan opera (Tib. a lce lha mo) which is still know quite popular and performed around Tibet by theatre groups (Wang 1986: 24-43).12 Thus, in Tibetan tradition Wencheng is primarily a Buddhist missionary, she has undergone deification and her bond with Songtsen Gampo was the result of the wit of the Tibetan minister Gar Tongtsen Yulzung who surmounted the obstacles of the Chinese Emperor who was reluctant to send Wencheng to Tibet. By the 2nd half of the 20th century one can follow a surprising resurrection of Wencheng in China, however in the radically changed ideological framework of the socialist People’s Republic. The incorporation of Tibet into the PRC marked the beginning of an official reinterpretation of Sino-Tibetan relations which be11 It would be interesting to trace down these quite particular motives in some other Asian oral traditions. 12 For some more variants of Tibetan legends related to Wencheng see Gruschke 2000: 104-110. 272 A visit to the Underworld in Polynesia M. Slobodník came contested and highly politicized. The historical legitimization of Chinese territorial claims has played a crucial role in the official discourse which should prove that since ancient times Tibet has been an inseparable part of China. Within this context even such a marginal event of the 1400-years long history as the marriage of Wencheng to Songtsen Gampo has suddenly turned into a milestone of Sino-Tibetan relations and the starting point of the debate on Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. According to a number of Chinese historians and official propaganda materials the Princess Wencheng and Songtsen Gampo were the two most important personalities of ancient Tibetan history, her stay in Lhasa made great contributions to the unification of Chinese nation and it left a historic legacy of friendship and co-operation between the Han and the Tibetan peoples, and helped to promote economic and cultural exchanges between China and Tibet (e.g. Wang – Suo 1984: 14; Zhang 1988; Huang 1989: 59-60). Within this official version of the history the ethnic labels of Han nationality (Chin. Hanzu 漢族), Tibetan nationality (Chin. Zangzu 藏族) and a unified Chinese nation (Chin. Zhonghua minzu 中華民族), which appeared at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century as an attempt to squeeze the multinational empire into a nation state, are adopted for the situation in the 7th century in order to confirm the current ethnic setup of the PRC. The story of Wencheng as recorded in the above mentioned Tibetan sources, however with a strong emphasis on her positive role of a cultural hero bringing progress and Civilization to Tibet (at the same time the historical circumstances of her stay in Lhasa are ignored, for example the practice of heqin policy), is widely circulated in Chinese-, Tibetan-, and Englishlanguage publications on Tibet (e.g. Anon. 1996), and it has even found its way into a language textbook for foreigners (Du 1989: 118-120). The official version of Wencheng’s stay in Tibet became part of the curriculum in Chinese minority schools in Tibetan areas in order to strengthen the notion of „blood relations“ between Tibetans and Hans (Dawa Norbu 1997: 52). Modern Chinese depictions of Wencheng and Songtsen Gampo are distributed in Tibetan areas and her image is used in state-sponsored folk festivals which should illustrate the lasting harmonious brotherhood between China and Tibet of which Songtsen Gampo and Wencheng became an icon. Recently in 2004 the movie The Tang Princess Wencheng was shot in China, thus these officially sanctioned curriculum vitae of Wencheng finds a large acceptance in China notwithstanding the historical facts recorded in Chinese and Tibetan sources of the period. To sum up, the story of the stay of Chinese Princess Wencheng in Tibet encapsulates the completely different perception of the history of mutual relations on the side of Chinese and Tibetans and the divergent interpretations of this event reflect their different ideological frameworks, that is the Sinocentric and SinoMarxist on one hand, and the Tibeto-Buddhist on the other. It may serve as yet another example of obstacles and misunderstandings in the process of intercultural communication. 273 Humboldt-Kolleg Dolná Krupá M. Gálik – T. Štefanovičová Illustrations: Fig. 1: The meeting of Songtsen Gampo (left) and the Princess Wencheng (right) as portrayed by an anonymous contemporary Tibetan painter. Both main figures are depicted within a complex setting of Buddhist symbols. This poster was acquired in summer 2004 in the vicinity of the monastery Tagtshang Lhamo (stag tshang lha mo) in northeastern Tibet (Amdo). Fig. 2: Songtsen Gampo and the Princess Wencheng on an allegorical float during a state sponsored folk-festival in northeastern Tibet (Xiahe 夏河 county) in July 2001. Note the lotus, a typical attribute of Buddhist deities, she is standing on. Wencheng is sometimes referred to as “the lotus of the sea” (Tib. mtsho’I padma) in classical Tibetan sources (Photo Martin Slobodník) 274 A visit to the Underworld in Polynesia M. Slobodník Bibliography: ANON. (1996): Songtsan Gampo and Princess Wencheng. Beijing, China Intercontinental Press. BACOT, Jacques (1935): “Le marriage chinois du roi tibétain Sron bcan sgam po (Extrait du Mani bka’ ‘bum).“ Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, 3, pp. 1-43. BECKWITH, Christopher I. (1987): The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. Princeton, Princeton University Press. BENEDIKTER, Martin (1965): „Ein Gedichtzyklus um die im Jahre 712 nach Tibet verheiratete Prinzessin Chin-ch’eng.“ Oriens Extremus, 12, 1, pp.11-35. Brag dgon pa DKON Mchog bstan pa rab rgyas (1987): Mdo smad chos ‘byung. Lanzhou, Gansu minzu chubanshe. BU STON Rin chen grub (1991): Bu ston chos ‘byung. Beijing, Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe. DAWA NORBU (1997): Tibet: The Road Ahead. London, Rider. DI COSMO, Nicola (2002): Ancient China and ist Enemies. The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Dpal ’bYor Bzang po (1986): Han Zang shiji 漢藏史集 (Rgya bod yig tshang). Lhasa, Xizang renmin chubanshe. DU, Rong 杜榮, ed. (1989): Intermediate Chinese Course, Part II. Beijing, Peking University Press. GRUSCHKE, Andreas (2000): Tibetské mýty a legendy. Praha, Volvox Globator. HUANG, Fensheng 黃奮生 (1989): Zangzu shilüe 藏族史略. Beijing, Minzu chubanshe. JAGCHID, Sechin – SYMONS, Van Jay (1989): Peace, War, and Trade along the Great Wall. Nomadic-Chinese Interaction thorugh Two Millenia. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. JTS – LIU, Xu 劉煦 (1991): Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書. Beijing, Zhonghua shuju. LEE, Don Y. (1981): The History of Early Relations between China and Tibet – From Chiu T’angshu. A Documenatry Survey. Bloomington, Eastern Press. SATŌ, Hisashi (1975): “The Route from Kokonor to Lhasa during the T’ang Period.“ Acta Asiatica, 29, pp. 1-19. SLOBODNíK, Martin (1995): “Discussion on Strategy against ‘Barbarians’ – An Essay from New History of the Tang Dynasty (Xin Tangshu).“ Asian and African Studies, 4, 1, pp. 71-89. SNELLGROVE, David – Richardson, Hugh (1968): A Cultural History of Tibet. London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Sönam Gjalcchän (1998): Zrcadlo králů. Tibetská kronika 14. století (Trans. by J. Kolmaš). Praha, Vyšehrad. SU, Jinren蘇晉仁, ed. (1982): Tongjian Tubo shiliao 通鑒吐蕃史料. Lhasa, Xizang renmin chubanshe. SU, Jinren 蘇晉仁 – Xiao, Lianzi 蕭錬子, ed. (1981): Cefu yuangui Tubo shiliao 冊府元龜吐蕃史 料. Chengdu, Sichuan minzu chubanshe. TATZ, Mark (1978): „T’ang Dynasty Influence on the Early Spread of Buddhism in Tibet.“ The Tibet Journal, 3, 2, pp. 3-32. TSHAL PA Kun dga‘ rdo rje (1993): Deb ther dmar po. Beijing, Minzu chubanshe. TUCCI, Giuseppe (1962): „The Wives of Sron bstan sgam po.“ Oriens Extremus, 9, 1, pp. 121126. TUCCI, Giuseppe (1971): Deb t’er dmar po gsar ma. Tibetan Chronicles by bSod nams grags pa. Roma, Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. TWITCHETT, Denis (2000): “Tibet in Tang’s Grand Strategy.“ In: VAN DER VEN, Hans, ed.: Warfare in Chinese History. Leiden – Boston, Brill, pp. 106-179. WANG, Furen – SUO, Wenqing (1984): Highlights of Tibetan History. Beijing, New World Press. 275 Humboldt-Kolleg Dolná Krupá M. Gálik – T. Štefanovičová WANG, Pu 王溥 (1955): Tang huiyao 唐會要. Beijing, Zhonghua shuju. WANG, Yao 王堯, ed. and trans. (1986): Tales from Tibetan Opera. Beijing, New World Press. WANG, Yao 王堯 – CHEN, Jian 陳踐, ed. and trans. (1989): Dunhuang ben Tubo lishi wenshu 敦 煌本吐蕃歷史文書. Beijing, Minzu chubanshe. XTS – Ouyang, Xiu 歐陽修 – Song, Qi 宋祁 (1991): Xin Tangshu. Beijing, Zhonghua shuju. YAMAGUCHI, Zuiho (1969): „Matrimonial Relationship between the T’u-fan and the T’ang Dynasties (Part I).“ Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 27, pp. 141166. YAMAGUCHI, Zuiho (1970): „Matrimonial Relationship between the T’u-fan and the T’ang Dynasties (Part II).“ Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko, 28, pp. 59-100. ZHANG, Yunxia 張雲俠 (1988): „Han Zang wenhua jiaoliu de shizhe – Wencheng, Jincheng gongzhu 漢藏文化交流的使者 – 文成, 金城公主.“ Zhongguo zangxue 中國藏學, 1, pp. 93-106. Resumé Čínska princezná Wen-čcheng v Tibete: sprostredkovateľka kultúry medzi faktami a mýtom Sobáš čínskej princeznej Wen-čcheng (?-680) s tibetským vládcom Songcänom Gampom (618?650) roku 641 bol pokusom čínskej dynastie Tchang posilniť a stabilizovať vzťahy s Tibetom, ktorý predstavoval vojenskú hrozbu. Príspevok sa venuje trom druhom prameňov viažucich sa k tejto udalosti: a) čínske pramene z obdobia dynastie Tchang; b) neskoršie stredoveké tibetské pramene; c) čínske pramene z II. polovice 20. storočia. Autor porovnáva rozličné interpretácie pôsobenia čínskej princeznej v Tibete. Pobyt Wen-čcheng a jej sprievodu v Lhase prispel k šíreniu čínskej kultúry a poznatkov (medicína, astronómia, remeslá, kníhtlač, poľnohospodárstvo) v Centrálnom Tibete. Neskoršie tibetské pramene z 11.-15. storočia sa sústreďujú najmä na úlohu Wen-čcheng pri šírení buddhizmu a motív jej sobáša sa stal obľúbeným námetom tibetského folklóru a opery. Neskôr, po pričlenení Tibetu k Čínskej ľudovej republike v rokoch 1950-1951 sa pôsobenie Wenčcheng v Tibete stalo súčasťou oficiálnej reinterpretácie čínsko-tibetských vzťahov, ktorá mala legitimizovať historické nároky Číny. Zväzok Wen-čcheng so Songcänom Gampom v týchto prameňoch predstavuje v prvom rade začiatok harmonických vzťahov medzi Tibeťanmi a Chanmi. Curriculum vitae Martin Slobodník (*1970) studied Sinology at the Comenius University (Slovakia) and Peking University (People’s Republic of China). As part of his postgraduate studies he studied Tibetology for two years at the University of Bonn (Germany). He wrote a PhD thesis on the relations between the Ming Dynasty and the Phag-mo-gru ruling house in the years 1368-1434. Since January till September 2005 he was a Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation at the Department of Central Asian Studies, University of Bonn. Currently he is an assistant professor at the Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Countries of East Asia, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia. He has published several papers on the history of Sino-Tibetan relations, the revival of Tibetan Buddhism and the religious policy in the People’s Republic of China. 276