A New Year’s Day Clash of Precedence

On New Year’s Day in 753 AD—the tenth year of the Tianbao era—a seemingly minor dispute over seating arrangements erupted during the Tang imperial court’s grand reception for foreign envoys. This incident, occurring just one year after the death of Chancellor Li Linfu, revealed the intricate web of diplomatic tensions beneath the glittering surface of the Tang Dynasty’s cosmopolitan court.

Emperor Xuanzong presided over the ceremony from his jade throne as envoys from across Asia paid their respects. According to established protocol, foreign delegations were seated in two rows—east and west. The eastern row placed Silla (Korea) in the premier position, followed by the Abbasid Caliphate (Dashi), while the western row gave precedence to Tibet, with Japan occupying the second seat.

The Logic Behind the Seating Order

The Tang court’s arrangement followed a “neighbor-first” principle reflecting geopolitical realities. Silla, as Tang’s eastern neighbor, had been a long-standing ally, having fought alongside Tang against Japanese-Baekje coalitions. To the west, Tibet held primacy not only due to proximity but also through marital ties—Tang princesses had been sent to marry Tibetan rulers, creating a kinship bond.

This carefully calibrated hierarchy was suddenly challenged when Japanese deputy envoy Ōtomo no Komaro launched a vehement protest through the Honglu Temple (Tang’s foreign affairs bureau): “Silla is a tributary state to Japan! How can we accept being placed below Tibet while Silla takes the eastern lead? Having traveled thousands of miles on imperial orders, I cannot return having tolerated such humiliation—I would rather die than accept this!”

The Firebrand Diplomat

Ōtomo no Komaro was no ordinary envoy. Historical records portray him as a man of unyielding principle, whose later involvement in a failed coup against Emperor Kōken would lead to his execution. His explosive protest—delivered with what sources describe as “intimidating volume”—forced Tang officials into emergency consultations.

After tense negotiations, the court reached a compromise: Tibet’s position was untouchable (given its role in instigating Nanzhao’s rebellion against Tang), but Silla could be persuaded to switch with Japan. As mediator Wu Huaibao reasoned: “The Japanese envoy will soon depart—let’s accommodate his face-saving needs.” Remarkably, Silla’s records show no concern over the rearrangement, while Japan’s chronicles proudly documented the victory.

The Political Backdrop

This diplomatic skirmish occurred amidst a power vacuum following Li Linfu’s death. Chancellor Yang Guozhong and general An Lushan were then collaborating to posthumously frame Li for treason. Ōtomo, witnessing these intrigues, reportedly exclaimed: “Such political vendettas could never happen in Japan! Traveling abroad makes one appreciate our nation’s greatness.”

This provoked a poignant response from Abe no Nakamaro (Chao Heng in Chinese), the Japanese scholar-official who had served Tang for 36 years: “Are you certain Japan is immune to such strife?” Their exchange highlighted the cultural tensions between Ōtomo’s nationalist pride and Nakamaro’s nuanced understanding of Tang-Japan relations.

Abe no Nakamaro: A Life Between Worlds

Having arrived in 717 AD as a teenage student, Nakamaro excelled in Tang’s civil examinations, rising to become Secretary-Director of the Imperial Library (a third-rank position). Though celebrated by poets like Li Bai and Wang Wei, he yearned for homeland. His expertise proved invaluable to Japanese missions—particularly regarding the secret transport of monk Ganjin (Jianzhen) to Japan.

When Tang insisted Japan accept both Buddhist and Daoist teachers (to please the Daoist-leaning Emperor Xuanzong), Nakamaro advised formally withdrawing the request, then smuggling Ganjin aboard privately. This scheme succeeded only because Ōtomo—defying his superior—secretly boarded the blind monk onto his ship after the official envoy had refused him passage.

A Twist of Maritime Fate

History turned on this act of defiance. While Ōtomo’s ship successfully reached Japan with Ganjin (whose ordination platforms revolutionized Japanese Buddhism), the lead vessel carrying Nakamaro and chief envoy Fujiwara no Kiyokawa shipwrecked near Vietnam. Presumed dead, Nakamaro was memorialized by Li Bai in the famous elegy “Lament for Chao Heng”:

“Our Japanese friend left the capital,
His lone sail circling legendary isles…
The bright moon sinks into blue seas—
White clouds weep over Cangwu’s peaks.”

Legacy of the 753 Incident

The seating dispute and its aftermath reveal several enduring truths:

1. Diplomatic Theater: Protocol was never merely ceremonial—it embodied real geopolitical hierarchies that nations fiercely contested.
2. Cultural Transmission: Ōtomo’s obstinacy inadvertently ensured Ganjin’s arrival, transforming Japanese Buddhism.
3. Diaspora Wisdom: Nakamaro’s strategic guidance exemplified how bicultural intermediaries shaped East Asian relations.

The abrupt end of Japanese missions after 753—due to the An Lushan Rebellion—left Nakamaro stranded in Tang, where he died never seeing his beloved “moon over Mikasa Peak” again. Yet his life, and this diplomatic clash, remind us how personal convictions and chance events could alter the course of cultural history.

In modern terms, the incident presents a case study in soft power negotiation—where seating arrangements, symbolic gestures, and individual agency collectively shaped the medieval East Asian order. The passions of 753 AD continue to resonate wherever nations jostle for prestige on the global stage.