¹ For the official Chinese regulations for the reception of foreign envoys during the Ch'ien-lung period see the Ch'in-ting Ta Ch'ing hui-tien: Ch'ien-lung [Collected administrative statutes of the Ch'ing dynasty: Ch'ien-lung period] (Peking, 1764), ch. 56, pp. 1–8b, especially section 9, as translated by Fairbank, J. K. and Teng, S. Y., “On the Ch'ing tributary system,” Harvard journal of Asiatic studies (hereafter HJAS), 6 (June, 1941), 170–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This article is an excellent study of the Chinese conception of foreign intercourse which can be summed up in the term tributary system. For additional information about tributary ceremony as given in chiian 43 of the Ta Ch'ing t'ung-li [Current ceremonials of the Ch'ing period] (Peking, 1756), see Pauthier, G., “Documents officiels Chinois sur les ambassades étrangères, envoyées près de l'empereur de ia Chine,” Revue de l'Orient, 2 (Paris, 1843), 14–22.Google Scholar Pauthier also translates similar material from the 1824 edition of the Tung-li in Histoire des relations politiques de la Chine avec les puissances occidentales (Paris: Firmin Didot, 18 59), pp. 185 ff. For a contemporary Western interpretation by the Jesuit Father Amiot see Mémoires concernant … des Chinois, 14 (Paris, 1789), 534.

² The crucial years of early Anglo-Chinese relations, 1750–1800, Research studies of the State College of Washington, vol. IV, nos. 3–4 (Pullman, Washington, 1936), chaps. 7–9; “Lord Macartney's journal of the China embassy,” in Robbins, Helen H., Our first ambassador to China (London: John Murray, 1908), pp. 180 ff.Google Scholar The Journal was first published in volume two of Barrow's, JohnSome account of the public life and a selection from the unpublished writings of the Earl of Macartney (London: T. Cadell, 1807).Google Scholar Hereafter the more reliable edition in Robbins will be referred to as Macartney's Journal; Anderson, Aeneas, A narrative of the British embassy to China, in the years 1792, 1793, and 1794 (London: J. Debrett, 1795).Google Scholar

³ See the Tz'u hai dictionary (Shanghai: Chung-hua publishing co., 1936–37) and Morrison, Robert, A memoir of the principal occurrences during an embassy from the British government to the court of China in the year 1816 (London: Hatchard & son, 1820), p. 9.Google Scholar See also the Ch'ien-lung hui-tien, op. cit., ch. 56, pp. 1–8b, especially section 9; Fairbank and Teng, op. cit., passim and other references in note one. For a picture of the ceremony proposed by the Chinese at the time of the Englijh embassy under Lord Amherst in 1816 see Morse, H. B., Chronicles of the East India company trading to China (Oxford: Clarendon press, 1926–1929), vol. 3, pp. 295–97.Google Scholar

⁴ An authentic account of an embassy from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China (London: G. Nicol, 1797), vol. 2, pp. 232, 256 and passim.

⁵ As late as 1859 the American Minister John E. Ward was not given an audience because he refused to perform even one kneeling and three head-knockings. In 1873 the foreign diplomats at Peking demanded and were granted by the T'ung-chih emperor an audience without the performance of the kotow in any form. See Rockhill, W. W., “Diplomatic missions to the court of China,” American historical review, 2 (1897), 638.Google Scholar

⁶ Tung-hua ch'Han-lu (Peking: Shan-ch'eng-t'ang, 1887–90), Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 118, p. 3. This is a great collection of documents relating to the Ch'ing dynasty compiled principally by Wang Hsien-ch'ien (1847–1917). The edition referred to is found at Columbia and Cornell. For a detailed account of the Tung-hua lu see Biggerstaff, Knight, “Some notes on the Tung-hua lu and the Shih-lu,” HJAS, 4 (July, 1939), 101–15.Google Scholar

⁷ Kuo-ch'ao jou-yiian chi [Record of the Chinese court's graciousness to strangers] (Canton: Kuang-ya shu-chü, 1891), ch. 6, p. 3.

⁸ Melanges asiatiques (Paris: Dondey-Dupré, 1825–26), vol. 1, pp. 440–41. Rémusat's evidence, a considerable portion of which is drawn from the records of the Amherst embassy in 1816, is as follows: When Lord Amherst was asked to perform the kotow he asked to be exempted as in the case of Lord Macartney. “Les négociateurs chinois nièrent avec force qu'on eût accordé au lord [Macartney] une exemption si contraire aux lois de l'empire; ils citèrent les gazettes officielles et les édits qui exprimaient précisément le contraire, et appelèrent en témoignage sir George [Thomas] Staunton lui-même, qui avait assisté à l'audience de lord Macartney; mais sir George, craignant les effets d'une réponse catégorique, s'excusa sur sa grande jeunesse au moment de cette réception. Enfin l'empereur [Chia-ch'ing] lui-même fit sortir un édit dans lequel il déclarait se souvenir très- exactement d'avoir vu de ses propres yeux lord Macartney pratiquer le kheou-theou devant son père [Ch'ien-lung]. …

Toutes les personnes qui composaient l'ambassade de 1793, affirment que lord Macartney a été dispensé des cérémonies du kheou-theou, et il est certain qu'en toute autre matière cette simple assertion de la part de personnes si respectables et si dignes de foi, ne devrait pas permettre le plus léger doute. Je n'opposerai à ce témoignage unanime, ni les insinuations d'Anderson, répétées et malignement interprétées tout récemment par un pamphlétair anglais,* ni même le témoignage peu désintéressé des mandarins chinois [at the time of the Amherst Embassy, 1816]. Toutefois celui de l'empereur me parait mériter quelque consideration: d'ailleurs, l'interprète russe Vladykin, qui était à Peking au moment de la réception du lord Macartney, d'autres personnes encore qui ont pu avoir de ce fait une connaissance toute particulière, s'accordent à rapporter des circonstances bien contraires au récit des Anglais. Le comte Golowkin, ambassadeur de Russie [1805–06], ayant voulu se prévaloir de l'exemption accordée au lord Macartney, on lui assura très-positivement que cette exemption n'avait jamais eu lieu. Enfin, indépendamment de tous ces témoignages, on aurait peine à concevoir le motif qui eût fait enfreindre ainsi, sans nécessité, le plus sacré des rites de la cour. L'histoire chinoise ne contribue pas peu à faire douter de cette possibilité.” *The English pamphlet, Delicate inquiry into the embassies to China, and a legitimate conclusion from the premises (London, 1818)Google Scholar, gives no positive evidence and is merely a vitriolic attack on both the Macartney and Amherst embassies.

⁹ Rockhill, , op. cit., pp. 632–33.Google Scholar Rockhill's evidence is taken from Rémusat, Anderson, Ellis’ journal of the Amherst embassy, and O'Meara's life of Napoleon.

¹⁰ Williams, Edward Thomas, A short history of China (New York: Harpers, 1928), p. 249.Google Scholar

¹¹ Notably, Macartney's Journal, referred to in note two; Hüttner, J. C., Nachricht von der Brittischen gesandtschaftsreise durch China und einen theil der Tartarei (Berlin: Vossischen buckhandlung, 1797)Google Scholar, published in French translation at Paris by Pillot in 1803 under title, Voyage à la Chine. Herr Hüttner accompanied the embassy as tutor to young George Thomas Staunton, and aided in the extensive Latin translating necessary; also Holmes, Samuel, Journal of Mr. Samuel Holmes … as one of the guard on Lord Macartney's embassy (London: W. Bulmer, 1798)Google Scholar, and the journal of James Dinwiddie, one of the scientists who accompanied the embassy, published in part in Proudfoot, William Jardine, Biographical memoir of J. Dinwiddie (Liverpool, 1868).Google Scholar

¹² Ch'ing shih kao (Peking, 1928; revised 3rd ed., Mukden, 1937). For a discussion of this work and its various editions see Peake, C. H., “A comparison of the various editions of the Ch'ing shih kao,” T'oung pao, 35 (1940), 354–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ Ch'ing shih-lu, published in 1937 by the Council of State Affairs of the Government of Man-choukuo under the title of Ta Ch'ing li-ch'ao shih-lu in 4485 chüan (chapters), 1220 ts'e (volumes). The Shih-lu is an official collection of documents giving an annual chronological, almost day by day, record of the affairs of a dynasty. This one was compiled according to customary procedure to serve as the basic historical source for the Ch'ing dynasty and was of course used by the compilers of the Ch'ing shih kao. The published edition is a photolithographic printing of the Mukden mss. copy. See Biggerstaff, , op. cit., pp. 101–02Google Scholar and Duyvendak, J. J. L., “The last Dutch embassy in the ‘Veritable records’,” T'oung pao, 34 (1938), 223–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See notes 23, 26 and 68 to follow.

¹⁵ O'Meara, B. E., Napoleon in exile (London, 1822), vol. 2, pp. 174–79.Google Scholar

¹⁶ MSS. Ministère des affaires étrangères, Mémoires et documents: Chine (1793–1855), vol. 17. The letter was from Grammont at Peking to Sēnor Agoté, Spanish chief at Canton, and was written in the winter of 1793–94. It will be referred to in more detail later. See note 103.

¹⁷ Anderson, , op. cit., pp. 146–48.Google Scholar He states that the audience “was a visit of mere form and presentation,” and that “the Emperor, it was said, received the credentials of the embassy with a most ceremonious formality. All, however, that could be learned, as matter of indubitable occurrence, was the notice his Imperial Majesty was pleased to take of Master Staunton” (p. 148).

¹⁸ Ibid., pp. 149, 151–53.

¹⁹ Hüttner, , Voyaged à la Chine, pp. 98–102Google Scholar; Macartney's, Journal, pp. 314–15Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 255–56.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ellis, Henry, Journal ofthe proceedings of the late embassy to China (London: John Murray, 1817), pp. 72Google Scholar, 92–95, 108, 110, 118, 123, 139–40, 147–48; Morrison, , op. cit., pp. 29–30Google Scholar, 48; Staun-ton, G. T., Notes of proceedings and occurrences during the British embassy to Peking in 1816 (London: Henry Skelton, 1824), pp. 22–24Google Scholar, 44–51, 53–54, 59–62; Davis, John Francis, Sketches of China (London: Charles Knight, 1841), vol. 1, pp. 35–38Google Scholar, 64–69, 83–84, 91–92, 102–04. Ellis and Staunton were two of the three commissioners who headed the embassy, while Morrison was the chief interpreter and Davis was an assistant interpreter.

²¹ Ellis, , op. cit., pp. 89Google Scholar, 141; Morrison, , op. cit., p. 39Google Scholar; Davis, , op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 103–04.Google Scholar

²² Su-Ieng-o was Hoppo at Canton in 1793 and 1794. Ellis, , op. cit., p. 75Google Scholar; T'ing-nan, Liang, Yüeh hai-kuan chih [Gazetteer of the Kwangtung customs] (Canton?ca. 1839)Google Scholar, ch. 7, gives a list of the governor-generals and superintendents of customs (Hoppo) at Canton.

²³ “Ch'ing Chia-ch'ing ju-i-nien Ying-shih lai p'ing-an” [Documents relating to the coming of the English embassy in the 21st year of Chia-ch'ing], in Wen-hsien ts'ung-pien [Collectanea from the historical records office] (Peking: Palace Museum, 1930–37), vol. 11, p. 20b; Ellis, , op. cit., p. 118Google Scholar; Staunton, , British embassy, 1816, pp. 59–62Google Scholar; Davis, , op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 91–93.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ellis, , op. cit., pp. 92Google Scholar, 108.

²⁵ Davis, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 120Google Scholar; Staunton, , British embassy, 1816, pp. 107–08Google Scholar; Ellis, , op. cit., p. 154.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ch'ing-tai wai-chiao shih-liao (Peking: Palace Museum, 1932–33), vol. 5, p. 14. This publication contains documents from the archives of the Council of State covering the years 1796 to 1835.

²⁷ See infra, material relating to notes 85–91.

²⁸ Wen-hsien ts'ung-pien, Amherst documents, vol. 11, p. 37b. The document is undated but is entered between two dated August 30, 1816. It also appears in slightly abbreviated form in the Ch'ing shih-lu, Chia-ch'ing period, ch. 320, p. 4b, where it is dated August 30, 1816 (Chia-ch'ing 21:7.8). An English translation, made by Morrison from the official copy delivered to the embassy, is dated September 11th, and is found in Morse, Chronicles, vol. 3, pp. 299–302.

²⁹ See next paragraph.

³⁰ Ellis, , op. cit., pp. 154Google Scholar, 169–70; Morrison, , op. cit., p. 53Google Scholar; Staunton, G. T., British embassy, 1816, pp. 94–96Google Scholar; Davis, , op. cit., vol. 1, p. 120.Google Scholar

³¹ Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 224–25.Google Scholar

³² Wen-hsicn ts'ung-pien, Amherst documents, vol. 11, p. 30a. The key phrase is chiang-chiu-liao at the end of the second sentence. This rather colloquial and idiomatic phrase means “to make the best of anything,” “to put up with,” “to let pass,” “to overlook” and implies that one accommodates oneself to or makes concessions to the circumstances. Some might take this statement of the Emperor as conclusive proof that Macartney did not kotow. This can hardly be done because there were a number of usages that were relaxed in the case of the embassy. It went directly to Tientsin instead of to Canton, and over eighty persons made the trip to Peking instead of the customary twenty. The Emperor's statement may have reference to matters like these, although the context indicates that the ceremonial was the thing referred to.

³³ For a similar imperial statement see ibid., p. 36a.

³⁴ Die Russische gesandtschajt nach China im jahr 1805 (St. Petersburg and Leipzig: Ziemsenschen verlag, 1809), p. 45 ff. The well known sinologist Henri-Jules Klaproth, who accompanied the Golovkin embassy says, “Lord Macartney did not submit to the Chinese ceremonial, though such a report was circulated while he was at Peking.” See Timkowski, George, Travels of the Russian mission through Mongolia to China, 1820–21 (London: Longmans, 1827), vol. 1, p. 135.Google Scholar

³⁵ Bantysh-Kamcnskii, N., Diplomaticheskoe sobrtmic diet mezhdu Rossiiskim i Kitaishim gosudarstvami s 1619 po 1792 god [Diplomatic relations between the governments of Russia and China] (Kazan, 1882), pp. 325–26.Google Scholar Also Stanton's manuscript, the chapter dealing with the Russian colony in Peking.

³⁶ Pritchard, E. H., “Letters from missionaries at Peking relating to the Macartney embassy,” Toung pao, 31 (1934), pp. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 20–21, 24, 40–13.

³⁷ Kwangtung t'ung-chih edited by Juan Yuan (Canton, 1822), ch. 170, p. 42.

³⁸ Yüan, Wei, Hai-kuo t'u-chih (Edition of 1852), ch. 53, p. 10a.Google Scholar

³⁹ Hsieh, Hsia, Chung-Hsi chi-shih (Last preface, 1865), ch. 3, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar Parts of this work have been translated by Parker, E. H. in China's intercourse with Europe (Shanghai: Kelly & Walsh [1888]).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Hsiao Mei-sheng, Chi ying-chi-li ch'iu Ao shìh-mo (No date or place), p. 1. MSS. in Cornell University library. There also is an undated printed version.

⁴¹ Wang Wen-t'ai, Hung-mao-fan Ying-chi-li k'ao-lüeh (Published, 1841), p. 10.

⁴² Ch'ing shih kao: Pang-chiao chih, ch. 2, p. la-b.

⁴³ The edict is reproduced and translated in Duyvendak's, J. J. L. article, “The last Dutch embassy to the Chinese court (1794–1795),” T'oung poo, 34 (1938), 86–88Google Scholar, and most of it is found in Kao-tsung ch'un-huang-ti sheng-hsün [Sacred edicts of the Ch'ien-lung Emperor] (Peking, 1879), ch. 276, pp. 20b-21a.

⁴⁴ See below notes 90–91.

⁴⁵ Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b.

⁴⁶ Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 118, p. 3.

⁴⁷ Kuo-ch'ao jou-yüan chi, ch. 6, pp. 3–4.

⁴⁸ Ch'ing shih kao: Pen-chi , ch. 15, pp. 12b-13a.

⁴⁹ T'ing-nan, Liang, op. cit., ch. 23, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar The same wording is used in the Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 18a, in regard to the birthday ceremony.

⁵⁰ Shih-ch'ü yü-chi ch. 5, p. 56 as found in the Pi-lin lang-kuan ts'ung-shu edited by Fang Kung-hui and printed in 1884. There also seems to be independent editions in 1888 and 1890. The publisher's preface to the 1888 edition (found at Columbia) says the work was never published before. It is also called the Hsi-ch'ao chi-cheng See Fairbank and Teng, HJAS, 6 (June, 1941), 216.

⁵¹ The exact meaning of wu-tao is not clear. Its ordinary meaning is to dance about or gesticulate, but it also means to manipulate the arms and legs. It also refers to an ancient form of court ceremonial mentioned in the biography of Ssu-Ma Kuang in the Sung shih (Sung history). Kuei means to kneel, and in accordance with the Chinese manner this would be upon both knees. For our purpose the term carries a certain ambiguity unless the number of knees knelt upon is specified and unless we are sure of what motive the author had in using the phrase.

⁵² Ch'en K'ang-ch'i (born ca. 1838), Lang-ch'ien chi-wen [Memoires of a retired gentleman]. First series (Preface dated 1880. Sao-yeh Shan-fang edition 1910) ch. 5, p. 11. The statement is incompletely quoted by Chieh-ch'in, Chu, “Ying-kuo ti-i-tz'u shih-ch'en lai Hua chi” [Account of the first British Ambassador's coming to China], Hsien-tai shih-hsüeh 3 (May 25, 1936), 27.Google Scholar

⁵³ The phrase pai-kuei might well be translated “to do obeisance kneeling,” but the longer rendering has been used to bring out the full flavor of the phrase.

⁵⁴ Fu-fu ordinarily means “to prostrate or to render obeisance,” and so it has been rendered here as the intended meaning of the writer. In reference to Western customs, however, it was used in 1816 to mean “to raise the hat and bow the head” [See Ch'rng-ch'ao-hstlwen-hsient'ung-k'ao (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1936), ch. 334, p. 10,745. For a discussion of this book see Teng, S. Y. and Biggerstaff, K., An annotated bibliography of selected Chinese reference works (Peiping: Harvard-Yenching Institute, 1936), p. 137].Google Scholar Mr. Ch'en may thus be using the term from a document in which it actually means something almost the opposite from what he believes and intends it to mean. * Fifth character from end should be chüch, to perceive, to be conscious of.

⁵⁵ Kuan Shih-ming, Yun-shan-t'ang shih-chi [Collected poems of the Yün-shan court]. Unfortunately it has been impossible to consult the original work, and so the extract has been copied exactly as given in Ch'en K'ang-ch'i, op. cit., ch. 5, p. 11 and Chieh-ch'in, Chu, op. cit., p. 27.Google Scholar We may assume that the quotation is correct and that it actually refers to the Macartney embassy. The passage might also be rendered, “No sooner had he reached the palace than he arranged his lcnee(s) upon the ground. The celestial majesty could cause all hearts to be subdued.” *The character i, one is missing.

⁵⁶ For information about Kuan see the forthcoming biographical dictionary, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing period, edited by Arthur W. Hummel. The biographical data was supplied by Dr. Hummel.

⁵⁷ Before examination one might think that a work like Liu Fu's Ch'ien-lung Ying-shih chin-chien chi [Record of the English Ambassador's audience with the Ch'ien-lung emperor (First published in 1917; Shanghai: Chung-hua book company, 1930), would contain invaluable information. But it is a translation of Lord Macartney's Journal.

⁵⁸ Fairbank, and Teng, , “On the Ch'ing tributary system,” HJAS, 6 (June, 1941), 163–64Google Scholar, 171, 176 and passim. See also the Chinese repository, 14 (April, 1845), 153–56 and Pauthier, , Histoire des relations, pp. 185–206.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See appendix.

⁶⁰ Liu, Hsüan-min, “Russo-Chinese relations up to the treaty of Nerchinsk,” Chinese social and political science review, 23 (1940), 407–09Google Scholar; Baddeley, John F., Russia, Mongolia, China (London: Macmillan, 1919), vol. 2, pp. 242–422.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ch'ing shih kao: Li-chih ch. 10, p. 4a-b.

⁶² K'ang-hsi hui-tien, ch. 72 (Board of Rites, ch. 33), pp. 1–3b, section 12, as quoted in Fairbanlt and Teng, op. cit., p. 166. An Arab envoy was also received by the T'ang Emperor in 713 without kotowing. See Rockhill, , op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar

⁶³ The accounts are by Macartney, the elder and younger Staunton, Hüttner, Dinwiddie, Barrow, Anderson and Holmes. See notes 2, 4, 11, 20 and 89.

⁶⁴ See the biographies by Robbins and Barrow mentioned in note 2 and the Dictionary of national biography.

⁶⁵ See the Dictionary of national biography and Staunton, G. T., Memoir of the life and family of the late Sir George Leonard Staun n (London: Havant press, 1823).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Morse, , Chroniclts, vol. 2, p. 236.Google Scholar Drafts and originals of the instructions may be found in MSS. India Office, China: Macartney embassy, vol. 91, pp. 341–74 and MSS. Wason collection, Cornell University, Macartney correspondence, nos. 155–58, 194.

⁶⁷ Pritchard, , Crucial years, p. 299.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ “Ying-shih Ma-ka-erh-ni lai p'ing-an” in Chang-ku ts'ung-pien [Records relating to the English ambassador Macartney in Collected historical documents] (Peking: Palace Museum, 1928–29), vol. 2, p. 12a-b; also Kao-tsung ch'un-huang-ti sheng-hsün, ch. 276, pp. 17–18 and 4–5, 6–8, 16.

⁶⁹ Presumably

⁷⁰ MSS. India Office, China: miscellaneous documents, vol. 20, Macartney to Dundas, November 9, 1793. This document is Lord Macartney's original despatch (unpublished) to Henry Dundas reporting on the embassy. Hereafter it will be referred to as MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793. Duplicates and copies of it are to be found in volumes 92 and 93 of the China records in the India Office. See also Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 130Google Scholar; Macartney's, Journal, p. 269Google Scholar; Hüttner, , Voyage à la Chine, p. 22.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Kao-tsung ch'un-huang-ti sheng-hsün, ch. 276, p. 16; Macartney's, Journal, pp. 251–52Google Scholar, 256, 260. It is impossible to identify Chou and Van as they seem not to be mentioned in the Chinese documents.

⁷² Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 5, Macartney documents, p. 25a.

⁷³ See the document quoted below in connection with note 74; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 9Google Scholar, 1 3, 26–27, 30; Macartney's, Journal, pp. 256–58Google Scholar, 260–63.

⁷⁴ Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 5, Macartney documents, pp. 31a-b. This document is quoted at length because of its inherent interest and because it shows the origin of a legend, long current at Peking, that Macartney did not kotow because he could not bend his knees. See Rockhill, W. W., Diplomatic audiences at the court of China (London, 1905), p. 32.Google Scholar A revised issue of his earlier article.

⁷⁵ Macartney's, Journal, p. 266Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 135.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, p. 41a. That Cheng-jui and not the English misrepresented the situation is adequately borne out by later Chinese documents. See notes 81 and 82.

⁷⁷ Macartney's, Journal, p. 272.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid., p. 282; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793.

⁷⁹ MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, vol. 92, pp. 209–10; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 143–44Google Scholar; Macartney's, Journal, p. 284.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Macartney's, Journal, pp. 292Google Scholar, 295, 297.

⁸¹ Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol: 7, Macartney documents, pp. 53a-54a; Macartney's, Journal, pp. 297–98Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 212.Google Scholar

⁸² Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, pp. 52b-53a.

⁸³ Macartney's, Journal, pp. 298–99.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, pp. 53a–54a.

⁸⁵ Macartney's, Journal, pp. 299–300Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 213–14Google Scholar; Anderson, , op. cit., pp. 141–42Google Scholar; Hüttner, , Voyage à la Chine, pp. 75–76Google Scholar; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793.

⁸⁶ Macartney's Journal, p. 299.

⁸⁷ Ch'ing shih kao: Li-chih section, ch. 10, p. 4a-b. Mr. John Kullgren informs the writer that Doctor Yüan Tung-li, of the National Library of Peiping, informed him that the memorial presenting the matter to the Emperor explained that among the English kneeling on both knees was reserved for the worship of God; that the highest compliment which they could pay to earthly beings was to kneel on one knee as they did before their king, and that they were willing to perform the same ceremony before the Emperor as a mark of their great respect. This seems so reasonable and logical that it may well have convinced the Emperor.

⁸⁸ Macartney's, Journal, p. 300.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid., pp. 300–301; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 218–19Google Scholar; Barrow, John, Travels in China (London: T. Cadell, 1804), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar Barrow did not accompany the embassy to Jehol but remained at the Yüanmingyüan palace. As he took no direct part in the events at Jehol, his testimony cannot be given much weight. There is another reason for using Barrow with considerable caution and skepticism. In this volume in particular he is guilty of inaccuracy, exaggeration and misrepresentation, with the object of making himself appear in a more important role than he actually occupied. See Proudfoot, William Jardine, “Barrow's travels in China.” An investigation into the origin and authenticity of the “facts and observations” [in it] (London: George Philip & Son, 1861).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b. See note 45.

⁹¹ Ibid., ch. 1434, pp. 8a–9b; Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, p. 54a–b.

⁹² Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b.

⁹³ Hüttner, , Brittischcn gesandtschaft, p. 66Google Scholar; Macartney's, Journal, p. 304.Google Scholar Hüttner's testimony is especially valuable because his journal was edited and published by friends in Germany without his consent and prior to the appearance of the official account by Staunton.

⁹⁴ Hüttner, , Voyage à la Chine, pp. 85–86Google Scholar and the German edition, pp. 67–68; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 230Google Scholar; Ch'ing shih kao: Li-chih section, ch. 10, p. 3a.

⁹⁵ MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 232.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Macartney's, Journal, p. 304Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 233Google Scholar, 237–38; Ch'ing skih kao: Li-chih, ch. 10, p. 4a–b; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Hüttner, , Voyagea la Chine, pp. 86–88.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 240Google Scholar; Macartney's, Journal, p. 308.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 256Google Scholar; Hüttner, , Brittischen gesandtschaft, pp. 77–78Google Scholar and the French edition, pp. 98–100; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, pp. 17a–18a; T'ing-nan, Liang, op. cit., ch. 23, pp. 3–4Google Scholar, referred to in note 49. It seems possible that at each prostration of the Chinese the English may have made a profound bow, which, to an observer at a distance, might easily have been mistaken for the kotow and thus have given rise to the Chinese claim that at the birthday celebration the English kotowed.

⁹⁹ Macartney's, Journal, p. 314.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., pp. 318–21; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 264–67Google Scholar; Hüttner, , Voyaged à la Chine, pp. 111–12Google Scholar; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793.

¹⁰¹ Staunton, G. T., British embassy, 1816, pp. 31–32Google Scholar, 47, 53.

¹⁰² See material relating to note 32 above.

¹⁰³ MSS. Cornell, Macartney correspondence, no. 292, reproduced in T'oung pao, 31 (1934), 35. Another printed copy of the letter, varying in minor detail, is found in Braam, Van, Voyage de l'ambassade de la compagnie des Indes orientales hollandaises vers l'empereur de la Chine (Philadelphia, 1797), vol. 2, pp. 415–18.Google Scholar Another copy, referred to in note 16, is found in the Ministère des affaires étrangères, and English translations are found in MSS. British Museum, Stowe, no. 307, pp. 256–57 and Barrow, , China, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ MSS. Cornell, Macartney correspondence, no. 293, reproduced in T'oung pao, 31 (1934), 37–38. The only known version of this letter is in French translation.

¹⁰⁵ Macartney's, Journal, p. 327Google Scholar; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793.

¹⁰⁶ Proudfoot, J. Dinwiddie, p. 52; Barrow, , China, pp. 119–20Google Scholar; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, p. 322Google Scholar; Hüttner, , Voyage à la Chine, p. 125.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Macartney's, Journal, pp. 331Google Scholar, 339–40; Staunton, G. L., Embassy, vol. 2, pp. 331Google Scholar, 342–43; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793; Hüttner, , Voyage à la Chine, pp. 127–28.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ It should be noted that this conclusion is supported (or seems to be supported) by three recent Chinese writers. They accept the view of the English documents that Macartney did not kotow, although none of them have collected enough evidence to definitely settle the matter. These writers are Siao I-shan [Hsiao I-shan], Ch'ing-tai t'ung-shih [General history of the Ch'ing period] (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1928), vol. 2, pp. 751–64; Chieh-ch'in, Chu, op. cit. (referred to in note 52), pp. 21Google Scholar, 24, 27; and T'ing-i, Kuo, Chin-tai Chung-kuo shih [History of modern China] (Changsha: Commercial Press, 1940), pp. 223–57.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ For some account both of early Chinese and Persian ceremonials see Rockhill, , op. cit., pp. 1–13Google Scholar; Moret, A., The Nile and Egyptian civilization (New York: Knopf, 1927), pp. 157–67Google Scholar, especially 164–65; McEwan, C. W., The Oriental origin of Hellenistic kingship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 1–30Google Scholar, especially 22–23.

¹¹⁰ For an excellent further discussion see Fairbank, J. K., “Tributary trade and China's relations with the West,” Far Eastern Quarterly, 1 (Feb. 1942), 129–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially pp. 134–35.

¹¹¹ See the articles mentioned in notes 110 and 1.

¹¹² The interpretation of i and jen here presented reflects the view of Professor J. J. L. Duyvendak as presented in various lectures upon Confucius at Columbia University in the spring of 1939. Jen represents the benevolence, compassion and goodness which the superior should show to the in ferior. I represents the obligations owed by right to the superior by the inferior, hence that which is right or righteousness. See also Waley, Arthur, The analects of Confucius (New York: Macmillan, 1939), pp. 27–29Google Scholar, 31, 54–69.

¹¹³ See the document quoted in connection with note 74. The Chinese looked upon ambassadors as agents, not as representatives of their sovereign. See Rockhill, , op. cit., p. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ This whole discussion has been kept in the realm of the theory of the suzerain-vassal relationship. Practically, the Chinese did realize that states like Russia, England and perhaps Japan were in a different category than kingdoms like Korea and Annam, at least so far as power was concerned. For that very reason it was desirable to keep them at a distance if possible through the ceremonial fiction of the suzerain-vassal relationship.

¹¹⁵ For facts about the embassies see the Appendix. Also consider Liu, , op. cit., pp. 391–400Google Scholar, and Ridge, W. S., “The k'ot’ow,” CSPSR, 24 (1941), 357–82.Google Scholar The writer agrees with Mr. Ridge's view that performance of the kotow did not in itself imply “suzerainty and subjection” (p. 372), but Mr. Ridge seems to ignore the fact that the sending of an embassy did imply, in the minds of the Chinese, submission to their cultural suzerainty. No such verbal gymnastics as those indulged in by Mr. Ridge can alter the fact that there was a fundamental cleavage between Chinese and Western conceptions as to the equality between states. This came to be symbolized by the kotow, and, in so far as the kotow symbolized this difference in view, the writer agrees with John Quincy Adams (and strongly disagrees with Mr. Ridge) to this extent, that the kotow was one important cause of the first war between China and England.

¹¹⁶ Bell, John, Travels from St. Petersburg in Russia to diverse parts of Asia, in 1716, 1719, 1722 (Glasgow: Foulis, 1763), vol. 2, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Amherst in 1816 and the Russian Golovkin in 1806 maintained the same illogical position but insisted on avoiding the kotow altogether because Macartney had not performed it. Thereafter the Westerners became more logical and did not send any more ambassadors until they had com pelled the Chinese to recognize in writing their equality, and did not approach the person of the Emperor until he agreed to receive them with what they considered proper courtesy and respect.

¹¹⁸ Even in the 19th century well informed men like Sir George Thomas Staunton, Robert Morrison and Sir John Francis Davis strongly presented the view that the kotow was a degrading ceremony which was an all important act in the submission of one state to another. Their view was no doubt influenced by their personal conflicts with the Chinese officials at Canton over equality. Morrison, , op. cit., p. 9Google Scholar; Davis, , op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 52–57Google Scholar; Staunton, George Thomas, Miscellaneous notices relating to China (London: John Murray, 1850), pp. 213, 235, 246.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ O'Meara, , op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 174–76.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ridge, . op. cit., pp. 370–72Google Scholar; Bantysh-Kamenskii, , op. cit., pp. 165–94.Google Scholar