The Manchurian Custom of Levirate Marriage

The debate surrounding whether Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang married her brother-in-law Dorgon after Emperor Hongtaiji’s death centers significantly on the Manchurian custom of levirate marriage. Proponents argue this was a normal practice where a younger brother would inherit his elder brother’s widow, while opponents maintain this doesn’t automatically prove such a union occurred between Xiaozhuang and Dorgon specifically.

Historical records show Emperor Hongtaiji had multiple brothers beyond Dorgon, making the assumption that Dorgon necessarily married Xiaozhuang questionable. Critics further argue that even if the custom existed, its persistence after the Manchus entered China proper (1644) remains uncertain. The rapid sinicization of Qing court practices likely diminished such traditional customs.

The Political Context of Succession

The power dynamics following Hongtaiji’s 1643 death created a volatile situation. As regent for the young Shunzhi Emperor, Dorgon held tremendous influence, while Xiaozhuang as the emperor’s mother occupied a crucial position. Opponents of the marriage theory point to Dorgon’s later marriage to his nephew’s widow (Lady Borjigit, Xiaozhuang’s sister) as evidence that had he married Xiaozhuang, contemporary records would show greater outrage.

Prince Jirgalang’s repeated memorials condemning Dorgon’s marriage to his nephew’s widow in 1651 and 1655 suggest such unions did provoke censure. Critics argue the absence of similar condemnations regarding Xiaozhuang implies no formal marriage occurred. At most, they concede possible covert relations, but maintain a distinction between secret affairs and official marriage.

The “Imperial Father” Title Debate

The controversial title “Imperial Father Regent” (Huangfu Shezheng Wang) granted to Dorgon in 1648 forms another key argument. Proponents see this as evidence of marriage, while opponents present a detailed evolution of Dorgon’s titles:

1. Initially “Regent Prince” (1643)
2. “Uncle Regent Prince” after military successes
3. “Imperial Uncle Regent Prince” following official discussions about protocol
4. Finally “Imperial Father Regent Prince” in 1648 after further achievements

Opponents compare this to Han Chinese traditions where rulers honored ministers with paternal titles (e.g., Zhou’s “Shangfu” for Jiang Ziya, Shu Han’s “Xiangfu” for Zhuge Liang). They note the title appeared in records before any alleged marriage (1647 vs. 1649), making causality unlikely.

Evaluating Historical Sources

Critics thoroughly dissect the evidentiary basis for the marriage theory:

1. Zhang Huangyan’s Jianyi Palace Poems: Dismissed as anti-Qing propaganda with ethnic slurs (“Jianyi” combining “Jianzhou” and the derogatory “yi”), written remotely by a Ming loyalist without direct observation.

2. Shunzhi’s Edict: No original text has been found, only later unattributed copies, making its authenticity doubtful.

3. Burial Arrangements: Xiaozhuang’s request to be buried near her son’s tomb (rather than with Hongtaiji) reflects personal preference, not marital status. The 35-year delay until burial in the Zhaoxi Mausoleum (1725) coincided with the centennial of her marriage to Hongtaiji – likely symbolic rather than evidentiary.

4. The “Discovery” of a Marriage Edict: Liu Qirui’s 1909 claim of finding both Dorgon’s diaries and a marriage edict lacks corroboration. His 1946 “revelation” after decades of silence appears suspect.

5. Dream of the Red Chamber: Dismissed as irrelevant literary speculation, with “raising a brother-in-law” being too vague to reference specific historical figures.

Political Behavior as Evidence

Opponents cite several political behaviors contradicting the marriage narrative:

1. Dorgon’s Confrontation: Records show Dorgon angrily confronting Xiaozhuang about Hongtaiji’s “usurped” throne – unlikely behavior between spouses.

2. Shunzhi’s Visit: In 1650, the emperor visited the ailing Dorgon after complaints of neglect – improbable if Xiaozhuang resided there as wife.

3. Posthumous Treatment: The rapid disgrace of Dorgon after death (removal of titles, confiscation of property) seems incompatible with Xiaozhuang being his widow.

4. Korean Records: The detailed Joseon court annals mention Dorgon’s titles but never reference the marriage, though they documented other Qing controversies like Yongzheng’s disputed succession.

Origins of the Controversy

The marriage theory likely originated not in Beijing but Zhejiang, through Zhang Huangyan’s poems. Several factors fueled its persistence:

1. Unprecedented Titles: The “Imperial Father” designation sparked imaginative interpretations among Han literati.

2. Cultural Misunderstandings: Confusion between Dorgon’s multiple Borjigit wives (including Xiaozhuang’s sister) may have conflated relationships.

3. Political Context: Ming loyalists had motive to discredit the Qing through scandalous narratives.

Prominent Qing historian Meng Sen’s early 20th-century investigation concluded the marriage was unsubstantiated, though he acknowledged how the title naturally suggested familial relations to contemporary observers.

Modern Historical Assessment

Contemporary scholarship generally agrees with the opposition’s view:

1. No direct contemporary evidence supports the marriage.
2. All “proofs” emerge from later, problematic sources.
3. Political behaviors contradict what marital relations would predict.
4. The theory likely originated as anti-Qing propaganda that gained credence through repetition.

The persistence of the debate reflects both the opacity of Qing court politics and the enduring fascination with scandals in imperial history. Ultimately, the weight of evidence suggests that while Dorgon and Xiaozhuang maintained a complex political relationship, no formal marriage occurred. The controversy stands as a case study in how historical rumors emerge and solidify despite evidentiary weaknesses.