{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02247191011235955, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006609385327164573, 'mean_word_length': 5.129554655870446, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
RHETORIC AND THE DISCOURSES OF POWER IN COURT CULTURE

It is a matter of surprise that the Chinese imperial court, despite its central role as the ultimate source of all earthly power for more than two millennia, has received comparatively little scholarly attention to date. It is, to be sure, impossible to write about Chinese history, literature, religion, art or any other aspect of traditional Chinese culture without constantly referring to the court or, more accurately, to several simultaneous courts during extended periods of Chinese history. However, there are few studies that deal, in the manner of Norbert Elias's Die hofische Gesellschaft (Court Society) or Joachim Bumke's Hofische Kultur (Courtly Culture), squarely with the Chinese court as a social model with a specific set of values, practices, and rhetorical conventions and that seek to shed light on the social organisation, material culture, and communicative practices of even a single court in Chinese history.1 The court and its culture are usually taken as a given fact, the stage on which political events or historical developments unfold, while the set-up of this stage as well as the rules that govern the actions of its players often remain inadequately understood. Even simple questions such as which institutions or people make up the court during different periods of Chinese history; who exercised power at court and in what ways; what are the main differences in terms of social organisation between, let's say, the Tang and