A Dynasty Divided: The Shadow of Yongzheng’s Reign

The early years of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1735–1796) were marked by an unspoken tension: the unresolved scars left by his father, the Yongzheng Emperor. Yongzheng’s rule had been defined by ruthless consolidation of power, particularly against perceived threats within the imperial clan. His brothers—Yinsi (the Eighth Prince), Yintang (the Ninth Prince), and Yinti (the Fourteenth Prince)—had been stripped of titles, imprisoned, or driven to mysterious deaths. These actions, though politically expedient, sowed discord among the Aisin Gioro lineage, the backbone of Qing rule.

Qianlong, ascending the throne at 24, recognized the destabilizing effect of these purges. The Qing dynasty’s rise under Nurhaci and its consolidation under Dorgon had relied on clan unity. Now, the “Hongchun Phenomenon”—where Yinti’s own son betrayed his imprisoned father—epitomized the moral decay. For Qianlong, reconciliation was not just an act of mercy but a political necessity to heal the dynasty’s core.

The “Heavenly Matter”: Qianlong’s Calculated Rehabilitation

In 1737, Qianlong confronted what he termed the “heavenly matter”: the rehabilitation of his disgraced uncles. His approach was meticulously layered:

1. Yinsi and Yintang: Acknowledging their roles in the Kangxi-era succession struggles, Qianlong stopped short of full exoneration but restored their descendants to the imperial lineage (jade register) and granted them the privilege of wearing the red belt—a symbolic reinstatement of noble status.
2. Yinti and Yin’e: These uncles, imprisoned under Yongzheng, were released within months of Qianlong’s accession. Yinti, once a celebrated general under Kangxi, was gradually elevated to the rank of prince, his posthumous title “Qin” (勤, “Diligent”) signaling imperial forgiveness.

The emperor’s rhetoric was masterful. He framed Yongzheng’s actions as responses to ministerial pressure rather than personal vendettas, preserving filial piety while subtly distancing himself from his father’s brutality.

The Ripple Effect: Pardons and Political Rebalancing

Qianlong’s clemency extended beyond the imperial family, creating a wave of rehabilitations:

– The “Eighth Prince Faction”: Key figures like Yanxin (a general exiled for supporting Yinti) and Sunu (a Beile punished for ties to Yinsi) saw their families restored to the nobility.
– Symbolic Restorations: The defaced tombstones of Yinsi’s allies, such as the scholar-official Kuixu, were replaced, erasing Yongzheng’s public shaming.
– Broader Amnesty: Even factions like the “Crown Prince Party” (supporters of the deposed Yinreng) and associates of the fallen minister Nian Gengyao received partial pardons. Officials exiled under Yongzheng were reassessed for reappointment.

This was not mere benevolence. By lifting the stigma of “treason,” Qianlong reforged loyalty among the elite while tacitly critiquing his father’s excesses.

Legacy: The Art of Imperial Forgiveness

Qianlong’s reconciliations had profound implications:

– Clan Unity: The Aisin Gioro clan’s cohesion strengthened, underpinning the “High Qing” golden age.
– Historiographical Control: By 1778, Qianlong finally restored Yinsi and Yintang’s original names in the imperial records, rewriting their narratives on his terms.
– Precedent for Mercy: His actions set a template for later rulers balancing justice with political pragmatism.

Yet, the rehabilitations were selective. Full exoneration for Yinsi and Yintang came only in 1778, revealing Qianlong’s caution in overturning Yongzheng’s legacy. The emperor’s duality—upholding Confucian benevolence while wielding absolute power—became a hallmark of his reign.

Conclusion: The Emperor’s Balancing Act

Qianlong’s handling of the Yongzheng purges was a masterclass in statecraft. By tempering justice with mercy, he stabilized the Qing dynasty without repudiating his father outright. His reforms remind us that even in autocratic systems, the past is never truly settled—it is a tool to shape the future. For modern historians, this episode underscores how leaders navigate inherited crises, balancing accountability with the demands of power.