This research note summarizes my exploration of Manchu archival sources in order to untangle the issue of the alternate terms referring to the Qing Lifanyuan 理藩院, or “Department of managing the non-Chinese”2 (1638–1906), in Russian sources. Nikolaǐ Nikolaevich Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s 1882 compilation, Diplomatichekoe sobranie del” mezhdu Ross ilˇskim” i Kitalˇskim” gasydarstvami s” 1619 po 1792-ǐ god (Collection of Diplomatic Meetings between the Russian and Chinese States from 1619 to 1792),3 is at the center of my investigation. Until the issue of multiple names for the Lifanyuan is clarified, researchers cannot use this significant source appropriately to study the Lifanyuan in Qing-Russian relations. The present research note offers a previously unexamined case to validate further the established central role of the Manchu archives in resolving some issues that remain “unsolvable” in Qing history if a researcher only uses Chinese language sources.
Lifanyuan was the Chinese equivalent of a Manchu-established institution called, in Manchu, Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan (The department that manages the outer regions). The predecessor of this institution was a Mongol-focused office named Monggo yamun (1634–1638) in Manchu (also Monggo jurgan in some Manchu archival documents) and Menggu yamen 蒙古衙門 in Chinese. In both languages, the name can be paraphrased as the “Office of Mongol Affairs.”
After the institution’s name change in 1638—in both Manchu and Chinese—under Qing Taizong Hong Taiji (r. 1626–1643), this office shifted from mainly managing Inner Mongols (as well as handling Khalkha Mongol envoys at their irregular court visits) to a governing ministry overseeing all of Qing Inner Asia. The development of the Qing empire went hand in hand with the growth of the Lifanyuan. Its full administrative responsibilities over time evolved to include all the Mongol groups (Inner Mongols,4 Khalkha, Qinghai Mongols, Zunghar, Turgut, Urianghai, etc.), the Tibetans (including the Amdowa in Qinghai), Uyghur Muslims (in present-day Xinjiang), Qinghai tusi (native chieftains in that region), Solon hunters (in upper Heilongjiang), and Russian affairs.5 No Chinese sources suggest the continued use of the name Menggu yamen in post-1638 Qing history. The 1638 name change thus marks the complete replacement of Menggu yamen by Lifanyuan in Chinese records.
Given its purview, the institution additionally had a name in Mongolian. Nicola Di Cosmo has pointed out that the Lifanyuan’s name in the Manchu, Mongolian, and Chinese languages each “identify Mongolia.”6 According to Christopher P. Atwood, the Mongolian name of the Lifanyuan was γadaγadu Mongγol törö-yi jˇasaqu yabudal-un yamun “Court of Administration of the Autonomous Mongolian States.”7 According to Dalizhabu, a Mongolian scholar in the People’s Republic of China, yeke jurgan “grand board” (Ch. dabu 大部) frequently appears in post-1638 Mongol archives and documents to designate γadaghadu Mongγol-un törö-yi jˇasaqu yabudal-un yamun (the Lifanyuan). Thus, the post-1638 Mongolian documents had two names for the Lifanyuan: the official one which originated from the early Manchu monggo yamun, along with a shortened name for convenience.8
Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s Russian sourcebook, however, shows the mixed use of Russian equivalents for Monggo yamun/Menggu yamen and Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan/Lifanyuan up to the Qianlong reign (1736–1795).9 Time after time, these different names for the same institution appear not only on the same page, but also in connected sentences. (See examples from pages 161 and 172 in the table below.) In 1982, the Russian language faculty at Renmin University in Beijing translated it into Chinese under the title E–Zhong liangguo waijiao wenxian huibian (1619–1792) 俄中两国外交文献汇编 (1619–1792) [Collection of Diplomatic Correspondence between Russia and China, 1619–1792, henceforth EZHB]. The translated volume did not clarify the use of Menggu yamen and Lifanyuan in Qing history, leaving the name confusion as it was. In addition, multiple equivalents for Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan/Lifanyuan are found in this Russian sourcebook, increasing the confusion even further. Since Russia’s information about the Qing empire came from the Qing authorities, and Manchu was the required language for communication between the Qing empire and Tsarist Russia,10 an investigation of how names were used in the post-1638 Manchu sources would point the way towards clarity.
Just as the Chinese translation often does not fully reveal what the Manchu original means, the use of Russian sources cannot fully rely on the Chinese translation either. A researcher who uses Russian sources must start from the Russian original and trace the Russian terms back to Manchu sources. In the 1982 Chinese translation of Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook, different Russian equivalents were translated into the same Chinese Lifanyuan, although these equivalents pointed to different governmental offices in imperial Russia. In historical context, such Chinese translation may not be wrong, since the Lifanyuan was the only Qing institution managing Russian affairs in the time period under investigation, but the Russian terminologies, and the multiple Russian conceptions of the Lifanyuan that these terminologies reflect, need scholarly clarification. Thus, before looking at the Manchu sources, the problem of the “name issue” in Russian sources must be addressed.
Problematic Names of the Lifanyuan in the Russian Sourcebook
The examples in the following table are chosen from the chronological records of Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook and its Chinese translation. Although there is a clear match between the original Russian Мунгальский Приказ (The Mongol Department) and the translated Menggu yamen, the Russian terms that were translated as Lifanyuan diverge significantly from one another.
The Russian source book Дипломатичекое Собрание Делъ (Diplomatic Affairs Meeting Between the Russian and Chinese States from 1619–1792) |
俄中两国外交文献汇编 (Collection of the diplomatic correspondence between Russia and China, 1619–1792), the 1982 Chinese translation of the Russian source book |
|
Name consistent on the same page but with different capitalization. |
Page 71 (year 1687): Призвапъ былъ Изврантъ въ посольский приказъ Page 72: На другу день (19 февраля) снова позванъ Изврантъ въ Посольский Приказъ |
Page 93: 伊兹勃兰特被召到理藩院 Izbrant was called into the Lifanyuan 第二天，2月19日，伊兹勃兰特又被召到理藩院 On the second day, the ninth of February, Izbrant was called into the Lifanyuan again. |
Shortly before and after 1718, the year that Посольский Приказъ (the Ambassadorial Department) was abolished, Трибуналъ replaced Посольский Приказъ. |
Page 82 (year 1717): … , отправили изъ Трибуналъ свое къ сибирскому губернатору князю, Гагарину … , Page 83 (year 1719): Посданъ изъ Трибунала къ сибирскому губернатору, князюю Гагарину, … |
Page 102: … , 由理藩院写了一信给西伯利亚省省长加加林公爵，… … the Lifanyuan wrote a letter to the Siberian Governor Prince Gagarin, … Page 103: … 理藩院写了信给西伯利亚省省长加加林 公爵, … … the Lifanyuan wrote the letter and gave it to Siberian Governor Prince Gagarin, … |
Two different names in Chinese and in Russian on the same page |
Page 161 (year 1728): … Прежде изустно, а потомъ мемориаломъ далъ зватъ агентъ, о семъ въ Трибуналъ, изъяснить … На сие ответствовано именемъ президента Мунгальскаго Приказа, … |
Page 188: … 先是口头，而后递送一份备忘录，把这个决定通知理藩院, 说明 … … after that [the Russian side] sent a memorandum and informed the Lifanyuan. 对此，中国当局以蒙古衙门尚书的名义答 … To this, the Chinese court answered in the name of the minister of Monggo Yamun … |
Two different names in Chinese and in Russian in connected sentences |
Page 172 (year 1729): Соловьевъ, по приезде своемъ въ Пекинъ, подалъ въ Мунгальский Приказъ обе грамоты, отъ имени сената съ нимъ паслапныя, па которыя равномерно двумя же листами ответствовано изъ Трибунала въ Сенатъ. |
Page 200: 索洛维约夫到达北京后，即向蒙古衙门递交了他投送的两封枢密院的公函。理藩院同样以两封公函答复枢密院。 After Solobev arrived in Beijing, [he] immediately presented two official letters of the [Russian] Senate, which he delivered, to the Monggo Yamun. Likewise, the Lifanyuan responded to the Senate by sending two official letters. |
Two different names in Chinese and in Russian on the same page |
Page 197 (year 1732): И хотя со стороны Трибунала … На посылаемыя Въ Мунгальский Приказъ Сенаты и сибирскому губернатору иметь сношения съ Трибуналомъ. |
Page 226: 虽然理藩院 … Although from the side of the Lifanyuan … 向蒙古衙门呈了 presented to the Monggo Yamun 只有枢密院和西伯利亚省省长方可与理藩院联系 Only the [Russian] Senate and the governor of the Siberian Province can contact the Lifanyuan. |
Three Russian terms were translated into Lifanyuan in EZHB. Two of them are quoted in the above table. The first is Посольский Приказ “the Ambassadorial Department,” which indicated an office in charge of foreign affairs in the Russian government from 1549 to 1718. The second is Трибунал “Court,” which starts to appear shortly before and after 1718 in Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook. The third is Китайский Сенат “the Chinese Senate,” to which the translators of EZHB provide a note (p. 434, note 2) stating that this Russian term should, if not must, be translated as “the Lifanyuan,” without further explanation. If one were only to follow the original Russian meaning and the Russian institutions of the time, this term is misleading, since there was no senate in the Qing government, and the Lifanyuan was not an institution on the upper level of government with deliberative and legislative power in the modern and Western, or Russian, sense.
It would be reasonable to assume that institutional contexts and changes within the Tsarist government had affected the choice of Russian terms for the Lifanyuan. Посольский Приказ “the Ambassadorial Department,” for example, could at one point have been thought to be the institution equivalent to the Qing Lifanyuan, but the removal of this Russian office in 1718 likely motivated its replacement with a new “equivalent” institution. The language barrier could have added another possibility of deviation. During the historical period under study, Qing-Russian communication was hindered by serious language obstacles, and translations from Manchu to Russian, or vice versa, through Latin, Mongolian, and even Turkic, could cause meaning discrepancies. To overcome the language barrier, the Russian envoy, during his 1676 visit to the Qing court, presented the Tsar’s request that the letters from the Qing to Russia written in Manchu be translated into Latin and Russian letters to the Qing be written in both Russian and Latin.11 In the 1740s, more than a decade after Russian students began studying Manchu and Chinese in the Qing capital, an article of the 1728 Treaty of Kiakhta was completed, making it the first direct translation between Russian and Manchu texts. According to Tatiana A. Pang, the birth of the Chinese and Manchu collections of the Library of the Academy of Science [in Russia] is connected with the name of the first translator into Russian, Illarion Kalinovich Rossokhin—a student of the Second Ecclesiastical Mission in Peking (1729–1735), who was accepted in the Academy in 1741.12 EZHB further confirms the 1740s as the decade in which Russian language students began engaging in direct translation from the languages of the Qing empire.13 Before this point, Manchu writings to the Russian court, as well as Russian writings to the Qing court, relied on the translation of Latin, Mongolian, and even Turkic languages.14
Кигайский Сенат “Chinese Senate” might have been chosen to match the Lifanyuan to the Russian Правительствующий сенат “Governing Senate,” which was the legislative, judicial, and executive body of the Russian emperors created by Peter the Great (r. 1682–1725). In 1728, the Treaty of Kiakhta confirmed that the managing institution between the two empires must be the Lifanyuan on the Qing side and the Senate on the Russian side.15 This treaty regulation reflects the possibility that the Russian government treated the Lifanyuan as a similar office to the Russian Senate at the time. The dispute over the equivalent rank between the two offices arose only later, as a result of Russian awareness that the Lifanyuan did not hold the same status as the Russian Senate. Трибунал “Court” could likely have been chosen the same way, by viewing the Lifanyuan as equal to the Qing court at a certain historical moment. These two equivalents were certainly not relevant to the Lifanyuan in the Qing system.
A passage that illuminates the Russian understanding of the Qing institution in Russian affairs appears in Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s introduction under the subtitle Какъ Китайцы называюмъ Россiанъ (How the Chinese Call the Russians).16 The following three tables provide passages from the Russian original, the transliteration of this quotation, the corresponding Chinese translation of it in the 1982 publication, and my own English translation. My analysis follows each part.
Original from the source book, page 5 |
Должность сiя (переписка) возложена на коллегiю внешнiя провинцiи управляющую, или коллегiю мунгальскихъ делъ. |
Transliteration |
Dolzhnstʹ siya (perepiska) vozlozhena na kollergiiu vneshniia provintsii upravliaiushchuiu, ili kollegiiu mungalʹskikhʺ delʺ. |
1982 Chinese translation, page 19 |
书写这种公文[清朝皇帝上谕]的任务，由管理外藩事务衙门（或称蒙古衙门）办理。 |
English translation |
The correspondence [written on behalf of the Qing emperor] is entrusted to the Collegium of Managing the Outer Provinces, or the Collegium of Mongol Affairs. |
This sentence added коллергiю внешнiя провинцiи управляющую “Collegium of Managing the Outer Provinces” to the Russian list of names for the Lifanyuan. The translation of it into Guanli waifan shiwu yamen 管理外藩事务衙门 in Chinese is inaccurate. The Russians, however, considered it to be the same as the Menggu yamen. Furthermore, it informs us about the Russian assumption of the importance of the Lifanyuan as the organ that drafted the Manchu emperor’s correspondence to foreign states, including Russia. Qing historians today would correct such a statement by pointing out that the Lifanyuan ministers were able to join the court decision-making circle, but the Lifanyuan, as an executive rather than a policy-making institution for Inner Asian affairs in which Russia was placed, primarily fulfilled the responsibility of delivering the correspondence to Russia on behalf of the Qing court.17 Before the middle of the Kangxi reign, the Yizhengwang dachen huiyi “Deliberative Council of Princes and Ministers” and Neige “Grand Secretariat,” both in higher power than the Lifanyuan, were responsible for correspondence with Russia.18 Later, the Grand Council took over that responsibility.19 The Russian perspective, however, highlights the Lifanyuan’s key position in Qing-Russian bilateral relations by assuming the Lifanyuan to be the highest authority in Qing foreign affairs.
Original from the source book, page 5 |
Но манджурскя называется оная Тулерги-Голо-Бе дазараджурганъ, а по китайски Монго-ли-фанъ-юянь. Коллегiя сiя подобна россiйской коллегiи иностранныхъ делъ. |
Transliteration |
No mandzhurskia nazyvaetsia onaia Tulergi-Golo-Be dazaradzhurganʺ, a po kitaǐski Mongo-li-fan-iuianʹ. Kollegiia siia podobna rossiǐskoǐ kollegii inostrannykhʺ delʺ. |
1982 Chinese translation, page 19 |
这一机构，满语称为图列尔基-戈洛-别一达扎拉-朱尔甘，汉语称之为蒙古理藩院，这个机构类似俄国的外务委员会。 |
English translation |
But this [institution’s] Manchu name is Tulergi Golo be dasara jurgan, and the Chinese Mongol-Lifanyuan. [This] Collegium is similar to the Russian Collegium of Foreign Affairs. |
The Russian transliteration of the Manchu Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan matched the Manchu pronunciation almost exactly in the form of Тулерги-Голоь-Бе дазараджурганъ. It indicates that around 1882 when Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook was published, the Russians knew the Lifanyuan’s Manchu name very well. Describing it as the Mongol Lifanyuan, Монгоь-ли-фань-юянь, further reveals that the Russians viewed the Lifanyuan as a Mongol-run office. This wording suggests that the Russian author of the sourcebook differentiated the Manchu name from the Chinese name of the Lifanyuan and distinguished the Lifanyuan as different from, but still closely tied to, the Menggu yamen when he compiled and completed this sourcebook. The sources that he compiled chronologically (as the above table shows), however, reflect the lack of such knowledge in Russia before his time. The “in Chinese: Mongol Lifanyuan” (по китайски Монгоь-ли-фань-юянь), another name on the Russian Lifanyuan list, will, however, easily leave a researcher at a loss.
Original from the source book, page 5 |
Въ оной не токмо мунгальскiя дела и управляются, но и со многими государствами, такъ какъ и съ Россiею, о всякихъ идутъ Переписки. |
Transliteration |
Vʺ onoǐ ne tokmo mungalʹskiia dela i upravliaiutsia, po i so mnogimn gosudarstvami, takʺ kakʺ i sʺ Rossieiu, o vsiakikhʺ idutʺ Perepiski. |
1982 Chinese translation, page 19 |
蒙古理藩院不仅管理蒙古事务，而且同许多国家，也同俄国就各种事物互通信函。 |
English translation |
In this [Mongol Lifanyuan], [it] manages not only Mongol affairs, [but] the correspondence with Russia and many other states. |
This sentence acknowledges that the communication responsibilities of the “Mongol Lifanyuan” reached far beyond Mongol affairs, to Russia and other states. Like the cases mentioned before, the message shows the Mongol-centered nature of the Lifanyuan as the Russians conceived of it. Since the Lifanyuan did not engage in relations with other European and Asian countries outside Inner Asia, the “other states” would likely be referring to the powers and peoples between Qing and Russia.20
In summary, Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook reveals six different Russian names for the Qing Lifanyuan during an era when Chinese sources suggest no Menggu yamen was in use: Мунгальский Приказ “the Mongol Department,” Монгоь-ли-фань-юянь “the Mongol Lifanyuan,” Посольский Приказ “the Ambassadorial Department,” Трибунал “Court,” Кигайский Сенат “the Chinese Senate,” and Коллергiю внешнiя провинцiи управляющую “Collegium of managing the outer provinces.”
All the Russian sources in Qing-Russian relations are well represented in this source book. Vladimir Stepanovich Miasnikov (Владимир Степанович Мясников), the contemporary Russian historian with the best expertise in the field, has pointed out seven different Russian names referring to the Qing Lifanyuan across Russian sources available to him. Two or three of them may be slightly different from those in Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook, judging by the Chinese translation.21 Although I have not yet been able to access these sources and Miasnikov’s article in the Russian original, I can confidently state that Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s sourcebook reflects imperial Russia’s use of the names for the Lifanyuan.
The Russians’ Mongol impression of the Lifanyuan, as reflected in Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s Russian sourcebook, came from the language use of the Qing correspondence. It was the Qing practice to write the emperor’s or the court’s letters to the Russian high authorities not only in Manchu but also in Mongolian. As early as 1655 when the Shunzhi emperor sent the first letter from the Qing court to the Russian Tsar, the letter was written in Manchu and Mongolian. The tsar’s envoy, who was present at the first official Russian visit to the Qing court, was asked to deliver it to the tsar.22 In 1686, the Kangxi emperor instructed the Lifanyuan to inform Russia that the tsar’s correspondence with the Qing court would now have a Mongolian translation in addition to Russian and Latin.23 In that same year, in a letter to the Russian envoy, the Lifanyuan requested him to write back in Russian and Latin and gave his writing to the Mongol Tüsheet Khan for delivery to the Qing court.24 Sometimes, the Russian envoy wrote directly to the Mongol religious leader Jebtsundamba Khutuktu and Tüsheet Khan to revise correspondence in a tone appropriate for writing to the Manchu emperor.25 For the Russians, the role of the Mongolian language in Qing–Russian official communications increased Mongol importance in Qing management of Russian affairs.
Furthermore, this sourcebook often presented the Qing Lifanyuan as being more powerful than it actually was. The reason should be investigated. Shen Jianshi 沈兼士 (1887–1947), Director of the Historical Documents Institute (Wenxian guan 文獻館) of the National Palace Museum, who decided on the publication of EZHB in 1936, offers an insight into this misconception as well as the strong Mongol influence on the Lifanyuan. According to Shen, both the Eluosi guan 俄羅斯館 (Russian House) and Menggu tang 蒙古堂 (Mongolian Document Section) under the Grand Secretariat, which was a clerical office dedicated to translating official correspondence to and from Mongolian, assisted bilateral correspondence in the two languages at the Qing court. After a communication was drafted in Russian or Mongolian, it would be translated into Manchu, although some remained in Mongolian. The Grand Secretariat stored all the Manchu copies and the writings received from Russia as well. When a Qing communication needed to be sent to Russia, the Grand Secretariat handed it over to the Lifanyuan, and the Lifanyuan delivered it.26 On the Russian side, the Lifanyuan could thus easily be thought of as an institution on a par with the Grand Secretariat. A Russian view would certainly be influenced by knowledge, primarily received through the Russian House, of correspondence being drafted by the Mongolian Document Section.
Overall, “the significance of the Mongol factor in the state-building process” of the Qing, as Nicola Di Cosmo has pointed out,27 was felt by the Russians in their relationship with the Manchu court. It is important for Qing historians to have this background in mind and pay close attention to Russian terms for the Lifanyuan with the knowledge that the shifting Russian names for the Lifanyuan likely correlated with political shifts in Russia and, also, with the evolving Russian conceptions of it. Hoping that Russian scholars would, someday, develop scholarly explanations for these terms in Russian history, the Russian sources certainly draw Qing historians’ attention to the Manchu, as well as the Mongolian, use of these terms inside the Qing ruling circle and their impact on communication with Russia. The various Lifanyuan names in Russian sources should have been based on the official correspondence with the Qing court as well as on the Russian contacts with the Qing officials in the Qing capital, frontier locations, and border markets. Qing historians must examine the Qing use of the Lifanyuan terms in non-Chinese language communications. As the Manchu and Mongolian sources are equally important for this purpose, this study will focus on the Manchu archives.
The Lifanyuan Terms in Manchu Archives, and a Clarification
The First Historical Archives in Beijing holds three Manchu series in Qing-Russian affairs. The first is the twenty-four-volume Eluosi dang 俄罗斯档 (Russian Archives). It comes from the Grand Secretariat archives and covers the period of 1655–1850. The second is the ninety-one-volume Eluosi dang. It is the Grant Council archives and covers the Qianlong and Guangxu (1875–1908) reigns.28 The third is Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian 清代中俄关系档案史料选编 (Selected Qing archives on Sino–Russian relations), which is a Chinese translation of selected Manchu archives on Russian affairs and Russian letters to the Qing court, organized chronologically. The original plan for this title was to publish five sets of archival materials. However, only the first set for the years of 1653–1734 (two volumes) was published in 1981 and the third set, 1851–1862 (three volumes) in 1979.29 In addition, Issue 3 of the 1987 Lishi yanjiu 历史研究 (The Journal of Historical Archives) published “Qianlong wushisinian Zhong–E maoyi shiliao xuanyi” 乾隆五十四年中俄贸易史料选译 (Selected translations of Sino–Russian commercial sources in the fifty-fourth year of Qianlong [1789]).30 This translated source does not mention either the Menggu yamen or the Lifanyuan. Because I was unable to access the Manchu Russian Archives in the Manchu originals due to various reasons, I turned my investigation to my personal collection of Manchu archival sources: Manchu palace memorials (zouzhe 奏折), the volumes of routine memorials (tiben 题本) published in 2010, publications of translated Manchu archives, and studies of the Manchu archives. The chronological scope of my examination starts from 1654, when the Russian envoy from the tsar, representing the first Russian official visit to the Qing court and marking the beginning of the Lifanyuan charge in Russian affairs, visited the Shunzhi (r. 1643–1661) court.31 It extends to the last years of the Qianlong reign, where the Russian sourcebook ends. Evidence from the investigation is significant to address the name problems under consideration, even though the number of the archival items is small.
The officials of the capital city and the local administrators of high rank could both report on government work to the emperor and ask for instruction through the two memorial forms but by different procedures. The routine memorial was processed through the Tongzheng shisi 通政使司 “Office of Transmission” first and then the Grand Secretariat before it reached the emperor. The content of routine memorials was not strictly secret. In contrast, palace memorials were sent directly to the emperor by officials, many of them concerning frontier affairs. The emperor returned each memorial with his directives inscribed with the vermilion brush, also with no intervening institution. The content of this communication required strict secrecy. After the Kangxi emperor’s promotion of the palace memorial, it became the predominant form of emperor-official communication during and after the Yongzheng reign (1723–1735). Palace memorials, however, did not replace routine memorials. The two coexisted until 1901 when the routine memorials were abandoned.
Qingchao qianqi Lifanyuan Man-Mengwen tiben 清朝前期理藩院满蒙文题本 (Early-Qing Manchu and Manchu-Mongolian routine memorials, henceforth TB) combines 1,613 items, 917 Manchu and 696 Manchu-Mongolian bilingual, into twenty-four volumes. Only two of these, both dating from the Shunzhi reign, focus on Russian affairs and can assist in the investigation of the Lifanyuan’s name. Two Manchu memorials in my collection of thirty memorials from Gongzhongdang Kangxichao Manwen zhupi zouzhe 宫中檔康熙朝滿文硃批奏摺 (Manchu memorials with vermillion rescript of the Kangxi reign in the palace archive), jigoubao, stored at the First Historical Archives in Beijing,32 contain information significant for the purposes of this research note. One item is on Russian affairs written in the last year of the Kangxi reign (1722). The other is on Tibetan Buddhist Lamas residing in the capital city written in the second year of the Yongzheng reign (1724). (A few of the earliest Yongzheng-reign memorials were placed in this Kangxi package.) They provide clear evidence of the concurrent use of the Lifanyuan’s two Manchu names. In 1996, the lengthy volume Kangxichao Manwen zouzhe quanyi 康熙朝满文奏折全译 (Complete translation of the Manchu palace memorials of the Kangxi reign, henceforth KMY) was published. It provides researchers with 5,000 Manchu memorials, including those in the aforementioned microfilm box.33 The original memorials in Manchu script, however, were not published along with the Chinese translation and have been, since then, no longer accessible for public use. Thus, the xeroxed images of the original Manchu memorials gathered during my 1994–95 trip have become invaluable for this research. Fortunately, some Manchu memorials of the Kangxi reign available in the Taiwan National Palace Museum were published in nine volumes in the 1970s. The following examples and analyses of these sources show that losing the original version of the memorials hinders researchers’ investigations of the Russian alternate terms for the Lifanyuan. The translated Manchu archives offer indirect, and therefore limited, support to the investigation.
The table below lists the two routine memorials (tiben) and three palace memorials (zouzhe) chronologically as tiben 1, tiben 2, zouzhe 1, zouzhe 2, and zouzhe 3. They show three different Manchu names for the Lifanyuan, which the Chinese language sources and the Chinese translation of the Manchu sources do not show. I have provided complete or partial transliterations and translations of them at the end of this research note.
Source |
Time |
Source Topic34 |
Institutional name(s) in Manchu |
|---|---|---|---|
tiben 1 |
1655 |
Receiving the Russian tribute envoy |
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan |
tiben 2 |
1660 |
Asking permission to allow the Russian envoy to enter Qing territory |
tulergi golo be dasara yamun |
zouzhe 1 |
1722 |
The Qing fugitives in Cuku Baising35 |
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan & monggo jurgan |
zouzhe 2 |
1724 |
The Lama affairs |
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan & monggo jurgan |
zouzhe 3 |
1724 |
Heir apparent In Ceng’s memorial to ask for instruction and Kangxi emperor’s directive |
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan & monggo jurgan |
The three Manchu names referring to the Lifanyuan are Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan (“the department which manages the outer regions,” Guanli waifan de buyuan 管理外藩的部院), Tulergi golo be dasara yamun (“the office which manages the outer regions,” Guanli wanfan de yamen 管理外藩的衙門), and Monggo jurgan (“Mongol department,” Menggu buyuan 蒙古部院, which usually appeared in Chinese sources as Menggu yamen 蒙古衙門). The Chinese translation KMY presents a similar 1696 case in which the Kangxi emperor used Monggo jurgan, as he did in zouzhe 3, when instructing his heir apparent. Its Chinese translation appears as ling menggu yamen yi lingcui chengyi songzhi zhenqian 令蒙古衙门一领催乘驿送至朕前 “[you should] order a corporal from the Menggu yamen to deliver the [letter] to me, the emperor, through the post stations.”36 Another example comes from a 1706 memorial written by Funinggan, the minister of the Board of Personnel, to the Kangxi emperor. It states, yijiang menggu yamen zhushi Shi Zhong paiwang Hami 已将蒙古衙门主事石仲派往哈密 “have already sent the secretary of the Menggu yamen, Shi Zhong, to Hami.”37 Readers not able to consult the Manchu originals cannot tell whether the Chinese phrase 蒙古衙門 translates Monggo yamun or Monggo jurgan. Still, these translated memorials suggest that both the emperor and Manchu officials in the later years of the Kangxi reign used Monggo yamun/jurgan to refer to the Lifanyuan in Manchu communications.
Looking through the Manchu routine memorials of the Qianlong reign, Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan was the standard term used by Lifanyuan officials when they identified their titles to the emperor. A record in the Heitudang (the Hetu archives) in the Mukden/Shengjing Palace, written in the fourteenth year of Qianlong (1749), attests to this fact. It says that tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i jergi yamun de daci damu manju hergen unggire bithe be baitalambi “The Yamen like the Lifanyuan has used Manchu script to conduct official writings from the very beginning.”38 In his study of the Manchu Hetu dangse, Tong Yonggong, a noted scholar in Manchu language and archival studies, however, revealed that in the fourteenth year of Qianlong (1749), the Board of Revenue sent an instruction to regulate official written correspondence. In its Chinese translation, Menggu yamen ji lifanyuan xingwen hubu 蒙古衙门及理藩院行文户部 “The memorandum of the Monggo y amun and Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan to the Board of Revenue” appeared in the emperor’s instruction.39 According to this translation, both the Manchu names for Lifanyuan were still used during the reign of Qianlong. While Monggo yamun was not the most standard form during this time, it nevertheless co- existed with Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan. All these archival documents prove that in the Manchu writing there was no sudden end to the use of Monggo yamun in 1638.
Corroborating evidence can also be found on the Russian side. Miasnikov’s study of the Russian envoys in Beijing during the last decade of the Kangxi reign shows that a Qing letter sent to the Russian court was signed by the Menggu yamen, but the returning letter from the Russian authority called this same office, in the Chinese translation, the “Beijing Office of Foreign Affairs” Beijing waiwu yamen 北京外务衙门.40 This fact underscores the Manchu use of Monggo yamun in conversations with the Russian court. In addition, the Qing emperor’s letter to the Russian tsar was sometimes written only in Mongolian. The Kangxi emperor’s letter to the Russian tsar in 1688 was one such example.41 This leads us logically to inquire about the Mongolian name of the Lifanyuan. As mentioned above, in Mongolian, the Lifanyuan was still clearly identified as an office for the management of Mongolia. Thus, since in both Manchu and Mongolian languages, a mention of some kind of Mongol office might appear in the Qing letters to the Russian authorities, Russians were not likely to be surprised by the perception of the Lifanyuan as a Mongol affairs office, and the Russian tendency to name the Lifanyuan in seemingly random ways according to the Russian perspective can be better understood.
In sum, the influence of the Manchu language on bilateral communication was the primary reason for the Russian mixture, or confusion, of Monggo yamun and Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan, and for causing the multiple Russian names for the Lifanyuan. In relation to these mixings and confusions, the Russian perceptions of this Qing institution varied considerably over time, or even within the same time period.
Conclusion
A study of the Lifanyuan in Qing–Russian relations requires a nuanced analysis of variations in the Russian names for this Qing institution. A researcher must understand the simultaneously existing Manchu and Chinese linguistic worlds of the Qing dynasty. Political terminology, like everyday language, varied in these two worlds. It was in the Manchu language that the two empires communicated. Following 1638, when Menggu yamen no longer had a place next to its successor Lifanyuan, the Manchu Monggo yamun/jurgan accompanied the more prevalent Manchu term Tulergi golo be dasara jurgan from which the Chinese term Lifanyuan was derived. Whenever there was a bilateral conversation, whether it was for government work, trade, or other purposes, the Russians had only access to the Manchu language, in which the Mongolian translation played an important role. The early Qing policy to prohibit Chinese officials from undertaking Russian affairs of any kind had completely blocked Qing–Russian communication in the Chinese linguistic world.
The Manchu adherence to the Mongol roots of the Lifanyuan, as reflected in the lasting use of Monggo yamun in Manchu-language sources, provides a linguistic explanation for the Russian “Mongol attachment” in the conception of the Lifanyuan. This attachment was further strengthened by the Lifanyuan’s staff, which consisted exclusively of Manchus and Mongols, as well as the Qing-Russian contact points, which were also positioned along the Mongolian border, if not in the Qing court in Beijing. All these entangled elements in a specific language environment should have influenced the Russians in their understanding of the Lifanyuan with a “Mongol character.” It was owing to the Lifanyuan’s work in the Manchu linguistic world that the Russian knowledge and conception of the Lifanyuan took the shape as we see in Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ’s Russian sourcebook.
Transliteration and Translation of Manchu Routine Memorials and Palace Memorials
Notes on the Routine Memorials
Punctuation follows the Manchu original as “.” or “..” According to Ji Yonghai, “.” can be equivalent to a comma. “.” can also function as an indicator for the reading sign called 语气停顿. In a third case, “.” often appears after the Manchu subject particle be and the prepositional particle de. When following these particles, “.” does not have the function of a comma. “..” will, on the other hand, can be construed more regularly as a stop.42 The Chinese titles for the two routine memorials are quoted from the TB volume, but there is no translation of the texts from Manchu to Chinese.
Tiben 1
《清朝前期理藩院滿蒙文題本》43
卷一, 67. 理藩院启心郎奈格等题派员迎接俄罗斯沙皇所遣进贡使节本
Juan 1, 67. Lifanyuan qixinlang Naige deng ti paiyuan Yingjie Eluosi shahuang suoqian jingong shijie ben
Volume 1, No. 67 The Lifanyuan vice director Naige and his staff present a request to send official(s) to receive the tribute envoy from the Russian Tsar. pp. 102–3.
-
Transliteration
[p. 102, lower part]
gisurehe songkoi obu..
[Lifanyuan seal print (overlaps with part of the first vertical line above as well as the vertical line below)]
wesimburengge
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i mujilen bahabukū naige sei gingguleme
wesimburengge. Oros i cahan han i alban benjime. elcin jihe jalin.
jang jiya keo i duka ci benjihe bithe de.
dele alban benjihe. Oros i cahan han i jafara sahaliyan dobihi tofohun.
šanggiyan dobihi susai. celmen juwe. šanggiyan uye i dahū emke.
ihan i uyehe sukū ninggun.. jihe elcin basilis i hoki juwan
ilan haha. uyunju morin. orin ilan temen. jang jiya keo dukai
tule bi sembi.. jurgan i gisurehengge. Oros i cahan han. teni
alban benjime. elcin jihe be dahame. meni jurgan i emu hafan. coohai
jurgan i emu hafan be unggifi dosimbuki. isinjiha manggi..
jihe turgun be yargiyalame fonjifi wesimbuki sembi.. erei jalin
gingguleme wesimbuhe.
[p. 103, upper part]
hese be baimbi..
[Lifanyuan seal print, overlapping]
ijishun dasan i juwan juweci aniya. ilan biyai ice uyun..
[Below the right corner of the Lifanyuan seal print]
mujilen bahabukū naige..
aisilakū hafan caki..
aisilakū hafan šahūn..
-
Translation
[p. 102]
[emperor’s instruction] “Do as discussed”
Memorial (to present to the emperor)
The vice director Naige of the Lifanyuan respectfully memorizes on the [matter of] the envoy of the Russian Tsar who came [to pay] tribute. In the [official] letter presented from Zhangjiakou [Kalgan in Russian] Gate, [we were informed that] “The Russian Tsar[’s envoy] just submitted black fox fur, fifteen; white fox fur, fifty; woolen rugs, two; a white sea fish[-decorated] fur coat’ [and] treated cow skins, six. The envoy Basilis’ team of ten men, ninety horses, [and] twenty-three camels is present outside the Zhangjiakou Gate.” The Department [the Lifanyuan] discussed [that] “Now that the Russian Tsar just came and submitted tribute, let our Department [and] the Board of War each send an official, after [they] lead [the Russians] to come in, check the reason for their visit [and] memorialize.” For this [matter],
[p. 103]
[we] ask for [the Emperor’s] instruction.
The twelfth year of Shunzhi, the third month, the ninth day [April 15, 1655]
Vice director Naige
Assistant official Caki
Assistant official Šahūn
Tiben 2
《清朝前期理藩院滿蒙文題本》
卷一, 143. 监管理藩院事务礼部左侍郎席达礼等题议是否准俄罗斯使者入关俟派员问明其来访缘由后再作定夺本
Juan 1, 143. Jianguan Lifanyuan shiwu libu zuoshilang xidali deng tiyi shifou zhun Eluosi shizhe ruguang si paiyuan wenming qi laifang yuanyou hou zaizuo dingduo ben
Volume 1, Nov. 143. Sidari, the left vice minister of the Board of Rites who also supervises Lifanyuan affairs and his staff present their discussion on whether [we] allow the Russian envoy to enter the [Qing] border and [whether we] wait after [our] official who is sent [to the enjoy] learns the reason for their visit, and [we then] make a decision
[pp. 235–36]
-
Transliteration
[p. 235, upper part]
gisurenhe songkoi obu..
[Lifanyuan seal print (overlaps with part of the first vertical line above as well as the vertical line below)]
wesimburengge
dorolon i jurgan i hashū ergi ashan i amban emu jergi nonggiha bime tulergi
golo be dasara yamun i baita be aisilame icihiyara amban sidari se gingguleme
wesimburengge..
Oros i aliksei miha alioweici cagan han i alban benjihe jalin..
Jang gija keo duka ci benjihe bithe de
dele alban benjihe. Oros i aliksei miha alioweici cagan han i sunja singsinjan/siksinyen?.
emu tanggū ninju seke.. duin sanggiyan uye dahū.. ilan tanggū sanggiyan
uye.. susai sanggiyan dobihi.. juwe buleku.. jihe elcin iban i emu morin.
dehi seke.. emu sanggiyan uye dahū.. juwe tanggū sanggiyan uye.. gūsin
suwayan dobihi. gūsin sanggiyan dobihi.. ajin mergen i emu morin. dehi seke.
esei hoki niyalma orin duin. yalufi genere morin dehi jakūn.. teme dehi
emu sehebi. amban be baicame tuwaci, ijishūn dasan i juwan ilaci aniya.
-
Translation
[emperor’s instruction] “Do as discussed”
Memorial (for the Emperor)
The Left Vice Minister of the Board of Rites who is added [the title as] the first rank official to manage affairs of the Yamun for administrating the outer dependencies Sidari, respectfully memorizes, for [the matter of] Russian Aliksei Miha Alioweici who [came to] deliver the tribute of [the Russian] Tsar. [The memorial says that] “The [official] writing sent [to me] from the Zhangjiakou Gate [informs that] ‘Russian Aliksei Miha Alioweici [brought] the tsar’s five singsinjan(?), one hundred sixty sable pelts, four white sea fish[-decorated] fur coats, three hundred white sea fish, fifty white fox furs, two minors; the coming envoy Iban’s one horse, forty sable pelts, one white sea fish[-decorated] fur coat, two hundred white sea fish, thirty yellow fox fur, thirty white fox fur; Ejin Mergen’s one horse [and] forty sable pelts. These people in a group of twenty-four moved [on road] with forty-eight horses [and] forty-one camels.’ We, the officials, [have] looked and checked [them], [in] Shunzhi thirteenth year,
-
Transliteration
[p. 235, lower part]
Oros i cagan han i alban benjime jihe fadui Isak o ci ba i ko se
ini han i wesimbure bithe be beye ilihai bumbi.. hengkilebuci. ini tulergi
ajige gurun i songkoi ilihai hujome hangkilembi sehebe
dele hengkilebuci ojorakū seme wesimbufi. alban benjihe jaka be amasi bederebufi.
jihe elcin fadui Isak o ci ba i ko se be amasi unggihebi.. te geli
Oros i cagan han. alban benjime. elcin takūrafi jihebi.. uttu ofi
amban meni gisurehengge. neneme jihe elcin fadui Isak o ci ba i ko be
ini han i wesimbure bithe be beye ilihai bumbi.. hengkilebufi. ini ajige
gurun i songkoi ilihai hujome hengkilembi sere jakade. amasi unggihe be dahame.
te. ere jihe elcin be uthai dosimbuci ojorakū. yamun ci hafan
takūrafi. jihe turgun be yargiyalme fonjifi bithe arafi hacikini.
isinjiha manggi. gisurefi wesimbuki sembi.. amban meni cisui gamara ba
waka ofi gingguleme wesimbuhe
hese be baimbi..
-
Translation
Russian Fadui Isak O Ci Ba I Ko and [his] staff who came to present the Russian tsar’s tribute, submitted his khan’s memorial letter [for tribute] by himself standing [there]. [He said that] in accordance with [the custom of] his small and outside country bending his body down was equal to kowtow. After memorized [the court] that he could not kowtow to the Emperor, [their] delivered tribute goods were returned, [and the] coming envoy Fadui Isak O Ci Ba I Ko and his staff were sent back. Now, again, the Russian Tsar sent an envoy and came to present tribute. Thus, we, the officials, discussed [that] “previously, the coming envoy Fadui Isak O Ci Ba I Ko presented his khan’s memorial by standing himself. Since [he] said that in accordance with [the custom of] his small and outside country bending his body down was equal to kowtow, so [our court] sent [him] back. Now, [we] cannot let this coming envoy enter.
Officials are sent from the Yamun to inquire about the reason for coming, write down [their reasons], list them one by one, discuss, and memorialize.” We, the officials, do not dare to decide this, so we respectfully memorialize and ask for the emperor’s instructions.
-
Transliteration
[p. 236, upper part]
ijishun dasan i juwan nadaci aniya ilan biyai ice uyun
dorolon i jurgan i hashū ergi asahan i amban emu
jergi nonggiha bime tulergi golo be dasara
yamun i baita be aisilame icihiyara amban Sidari..
dorolon i jurgan i ici ergi ashan i amban emu
jergi nonggiha bime tulergi golo be dasara
yamun i baita be aisilame icihiyara amban Šasˇtai..
weilen ejeku hafan emu jergi nonggiha amban Yahū..
weilen ejeku hafan emu jergi nonggiha amban Hūsiba.
-
Translation
The seventeenth year of Shunzhi, the third month, the ninth day [April 18, 1660]
The Left Vice Minister of the Board of Rites who has as the additional title of the first rank minister who manages the Yamun for administrating the affairs of the outer dependencies Sidari
The Right Vice Minister of the Board of Rites who has the additional title of the first rank minister who manages the Yamun for administrating the affairs of the outer dependencies Šaštai
Administrative official with the addition of the title of minister of the first rank Yahū
Administrative official with the addition of the title of assistant minister of the first rank Hūsiba
Notes on the Palace Memorials
The palace memorials only use the punctuation mark “.” I have marked the names of the relevant offices in bold. The strikethrough line shows deletions by the emperor in the Manchu original and the red sections show words added by the emperor to replace the crossed-out words. Question marks indicate that the original is illegible.
Zouzhe 1
Gongzhongdang Kangxichao Manwen zouzhe, jigoubao, Firs Historical Archives, Microfilm Box #7, pp. 2,551–57.
Note: Lines crossing words reflect the emperor’s own editing of the memorial.
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,551]
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i gingguleme
wesimburengge
dergi hese be gingguleme dahara jalin elhe
taifin i ninju emuci aniya uyun biyai
ice nadan de
kiyan cing men i uju jergi hiya rasi de
hesa [hese] wasimbuhangge. cuku baising de musei
ukanju i mejige be aliyame tehe janggin be
gocika. te emu juwe janggin bithesi be niyalma takūrafi.
cuku baising de ukanju i mejige be
gaime genekini. ere genefi ese genefi amasi jihe manggi. jai geli
niyalma takūraki. ere genehe niyalma manggi. Oros i
-
Translation
In the matter of obeying the imperial edict, the Lifanyuan respectfully memorializes. Kangxi sixty-first year, the ninth month, the seventh day, the emperor issued his edict to the first rank guard of the Qianqing Gate Rasi. [The edict says that] “[We have] brought back the janggin [official] who was in Cuku Baising to gather information about our fugitives.
Now, [Let us] send over one or two persons [a] janggin clerk to Cuku Baising and let [him] gather information about the fugitives. After this [person] goes over these [people] go over [and] return back [from this round], send people [over] again. This going-over person [over] after going over,
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,552]
mejige be narhūšame fujurulame gaikini.
takūrara de. janggin bithesi dorgi
getuken mutere niyalma be. ging hecen ci
tucibufi tederi unggikini. erebe si
monggo jurgan i aki acafi. gisuredari
unggikini sehebe gingguleme dahafi icihiyara
hafan orai. bithesi nayantai be tucibufi.
giyamun yalubufi unggiki… … .
-
Translation
[Let him] secretly collect detailed Russian information. When sending [people over], recommend [and select them] from the careful and capable janggin clerks in the capital city. For this matter, you meet Monggo Jurgan’s Aki and send [the resulting] each discussion.” Following this edict respectfully, section director [langzhong 郎中 of the Monggo Jurgan] Orai and writing clerk Nayantai were selected [and] dispatched by [horse] to ride over [there] via the post stations …
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,557]
elhe taifin i ninju emuci aniya uyun biyai ice jakūn
kiyan cing men i uju jergi hiya rasi
hashū ergi ashan amban. amban tegut
aisilakū hafan. amban sandari
ejeku hafan. amban bandi
-
Translation
Kangxi sixty-first year, the ninth month, the eighth day [October 10, 1722]
Qianqingmen first-rank guard Rasi
The left vice minister Tegut
Assistant official Sandari
Secretary Bandi
Zouzhe 2
Gongzhongdang Kangxichao Manwen zouzhe, jigoubao, First Historical Archives, Microfilm Box #7, pp. 2,795–2,826
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,795]
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i baita be
icihiyara. hošoi elgiyen cin wang. amban bootai sei
gingguleme
wesimburengge
hese be dahame. ging hecen i lama sede fafun toktobure
jalin. neneme u tai šan alin i lamasa de fafun i
bithe toktobume beidebume takūraha. gung olondai sei
beidehe baita be wesimbuhede.
hese. ere gisurehengge getuken. damu erei dorgi alin de
hiyan dabure urse be tofohon inenggi bilagan
dulemburakū obuki sehebi. tofohun inenggi okode.
niyama nimere tookara be boljoci ombio. bilagan
-
Translation
The first-rank Hošoi Prince Yu in charge of Lifanyuan affairs, official Bootai, and his staff respectfully memorize the matter of following the emperor’s edict to determine regulations for the lamas resident in the capital city. “Previously, [we] examined, determined, and sent the regulation text for the lamas of the Wutai Mountain. First-rank noble Ukondai checked the matter and memorialized on [it for the emperor]. [His memorial indicates that “The emperor] instructed us to discuss it and make it clear. A pilgrim who enters the mountains for the purpose of burning incense/worship can only stay for fifteen days without an extension. If someone is ill, is it possible to request a longer stay on the fifteenth day?
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,796]
majige hahi ohobi. yarigiyan i nimere tookara
niyalma bici. ba ne i hafasa de akdun bithe
bufi. bisire ininggi bilagan be acara be tuwame
majige saniyabu. erebe uheri baita icihiyara wang.
ambasa. tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i emgi
acafi gisurefi wesimbukini… … .
… tuguwan kūtuktu de tulergi golo be
-
Translation
If someone is indeed ill [and] in urgent need of staying longer, let the local officials issue [him] a letter card [xinpai 信牌], look at [his] existing days, [and] extend [his stay] a little [longer]. [Tell] the prince and officials who take care of this matter to get together with the Lifanyuan, discuss, and memorize… . To Tuguwan Kūtuktu, it is good to let the Lifanyuan
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,797]
dasara jurgan i asaha i amban emke kamcibufi.
lamasai baita be icihiyame fafun be ciralame
ehenggi be isebume oci tusa… .
… …
-
Translation
left vice minister concurrently in charge, strictly carry regulations which manage the lama affairs, and punish the wrongdoing …
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,801]
… … te tuguwan
kūtuktu. ganjurba nomun han. biliktu nomun
kan sei uhei alibuha bithede. elhe taifin i
ninju emuci aniya aniya biyade monggo jurgan.
kiyan cing men i hiya Rasi acafi lamasai
kooli tacin be toktobume gisurefi. wesimbuhe
-
Translation
… Now Tuguwan Khutukhtu, Ganjorba Nomun khan, Biliktu Nomun khan and others present [this] letter together. [The letter says that] “In the Kangxi sixty-first year, the first month, Monggo jurgan [and] Kiyan Cing Men Guard met, discussed, and formulated the Lama Regulations, and memorialized on [the matter for the emperor].
… …
-
Transliteration
[p. 2,825]
Hūwaliyasun tob i jai aniya duin biyai ice ninggun
tulergi golo be dasara jurgan i
baita be icihiyara hošoi
elgiyen cin wang. amban bootai
-
Translation
Yongzheng second year, the fourth month, the sixth day [April 28, 1724]
The Heshuo Prince Yu in charge of the Lifanyuan affairs, official Bootai
Zouzhe 3
Gongzhongdang kangxichao zouzhe, volume 8 宫中檔康熙奏摺, 第八輯 (Taipei: Gugong bowuyuan, 1976), 311–13.
-
Transliteration
[p. 311]
wesimburengge
hūwang taizi amban in ceng ni gingguleme wesimburengge
han ama i tumen elhe be gingguleme baimbi… … . .
-
Translation
Memorial
Heir apparent courtier In Ceng respectfully memorialized [as follows].
I respectfully wish [my father the] Khan with ten thousand [years of] wellness.
-
Transliteration
[p. 312]
… jai ioi ceng lung ni bele juwehe baita be
hebe acaha emu baita. hafan i jurgan i emu baita.
siyūn fu li wei wesimbuhe emu baita. tulergi golo be
dasara jurgan i emu ježi be
wesimbume unggihe..
-
Translation
Moreover, [our] official meeting regarding Yao Chenglong’s grain transportation, Board of Personnel business, the issues raised in provincial governor Li Wei’s memorial, [and] the Lifanyuan’s memorial [have all] been presented in a memorial.
-
Transliteration
[p. 313]
[Emperor’s handwritten instruction:]
… jai adaha de rasi i gajiha ilhūnggan hūtuktu i šabi be
monggo jurgan i emu bošoku be yamun[?]
jalubufi mini jakade/jakande benjibu..
-
Translation
… Moreover, [give order to] a corporal of monggo jurgan, [let this corporal] nicely accommodate Khutukhtu’s disciple whom Rasi [a Mongol official of the court] had accompanied [on his way here], then send him [the disciple] to me.
Notes
- The author sincerely thanks Mårten Söderblom Saarela and Chen Kuan-chieh 陳冠傑 for the generous help in providing sources. ⮭
- The Chinese fan 藩 in the word Lifanyuan can indicate both regions and peoples. ⮭
- Казанъ: Типография Императорскаго Университета, 1882. ⮭
- The term neimenggu 内蒙古 “Inner Mongols” known today appeared in some Qing official and non-official sources in contrast to waimenggu “Outer Mongols,” indicating the Khalkha Mongols. See Daqing huidian lifanyuan shili 大清会典理藩院事例 [The collected statutes of the Qing dynasty on the Lifanyuan] (Beijing: Xizang shehui kexueyuan, 1991), 1 and 10; “Jiaqing chao Da Qing huidian zhong de Lifanyuan ziliao” 嘉庆朝《大清会典》中的理藩院资料 [Lifanyuan materials in the Jiaqing edition of Collected Statutes of the Qing] in Qingdai Lifanyuan ziliao jilu 清代理藩院资料辑录 [Collection of Qing dynasty Lifanyuan records], ed. Zhao Yuntian 赵云田 (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu zhongxin, 1988) (hereafter QLZJ), 1 and 4; and Zhang Mu 张穆, Menggu youmu ji 蒙古游牧记 [Records on the nomadic Mongols] (Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1991), chs. 1–10. Other frequently used names for the Inner Mongols in Qing documents were Neizhasake 内札萨克 (“the Inner Jasagh”), as opposed to Waizhasake 外札萨克 (“the Outer Jasagh”), and Monan menggu 漠南蒙古 (“the Mongols south of the desert”). For Neizhasake of forty-nine banners versus Waizhasake or the Khalkha of seventy-eight banners, see Qianlong chao neifu chaoben “Lifanyuan zeli” 乾隆朝内附抄本《理藩院则例》 [Handwritten edition of the regulations of the Lifanyuan in the Qianlong reign], in QLZJ 1, 7, 33, and 86. The number of the Khalkha Mongol banners finally developed into eighty-six. See Jin Hai 金海, Qimde Dorji 齐木德道尔吉, Huricha 胡日查, and Hasbagen 哈斯巴根, Qingdai menggu zhi 清代蒙古志 [Gazetteer of the Mongols in the Qing dynasty] (Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2009), 83. For the “Mongols south of the desert,” see Qianlong chao “Da Qing huidian” zhong de Lifanyuan ziliao 乾隆朝《大清会典》中的理藩院资料 [Lifanyuan materials in the Qianlong edition of the Collected Statutes of the Qing), QLZJ, 2. Waifan 外藩 (the outer non-Chinese [people]) was also used to refer to the Inner Mongols as opposed to the Khalkha in Qing documents. See Kangxichao “Da Qing huidian” zhong de Lifanyuan ziliao 康熙朝《大清会典》中的理藩院资料 [Lifanyuan Materials in the Kangxi Edition of the Collected Statutes of the Qing], QLZJ, 2, 13–15, 24; and Yongzheng chao “Da Qing huidian” zhong de lifanyuan ziliao 雍正朝《大清会典》中的理藩院资料 [Lifanyuan Materials in the Yongzheng Edition of the Collected Statutes of the Qing] in QLZJ, 1 and 27. Whereas the Inner Mongols fell into different categories in these Qing sources, the Outer Mongols were usually referred as Khalkha Mongols. ⮭
- For the name change process, see Dittmar Schorkowitz and Chia Ning, eds., Managing Frontiers in Qing China: The Lifanyuan and Libu Revisited (Boston: Brill, 2017), 5–6, 45, and 101. For the growing Lifanyuan responsibilities in Inner Asia and Russian affairs, see chapters 1 (43–69) and 5 (144–83) of the same book; and also Chia Ning, “The Tribute System in the Qing Dynasty: From Mechanism of Empire-Building to Origins of the Fall” in Tribute System and Rulership in Late Imperial China, eds. Ralph Kauz and Morris Rossabi (Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2022), 79–98. ⮭
- Nicola Di Cosmo, “From Alliance to Tutelage: A Historical Analysis of Manchu-Mongol Relations before the Qing Conquest,” Frontiers of History in China 7, no. 2 (2012): 182–86, here 183; “The Qing and Inner Asia: 1636–1800,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, eds. Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 334. ⮭
- Christopher P. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts On File, 2004), 333. ⮭
- The author of this research note is deeply indebted to Professor Dalizhabu at Fudan University for offering the knowledge. ⮭
- Nikolaǐ Nikolaevich Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ, Diplomatichekoe Sobranie Del” Mezhdu Rossiǐskim” i Kitaǐskim” Gasydarstvami s” 1619 po 1792-ǐ God Дипломатичекое Собрание Делъ Между Российскимъ и Китайскимъ Государствами съ 1619 по 1792-й Годъ [Diplomatic affairs meeting between the Russian and Chinese states from 1619 to 1792] (Казанъ: Типография Императорскаго Университета, 1882), 315; E–Zhong liangguo waijiao wenxian huibian, 1619–1792 俄中两国外交文献汇编, 1619–1792 [Collection of diplomatic correspondence between Russia and China, 1619–1792] (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1982), 350. ⮭
- EZHB, 37n1 as an example, 156 and 333. Yanagisawa Akira, “Some Remarks on the ‘Addendum to the Treaty of Kiakhta’ in 1768,” The Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 63 (2005): 71–72. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 26–27. ⮭
- Tatiana A. Pang, Descriptive Catalogue of Manchu Manuscripts and Block Prints in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Part 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2001), ix. About Illarion Kalinovich Rossokhin, see Dmitrii Tcvetkov, “About Some Little-known Translations of Chinese Literature by Illarion K. Rossohin,” in The 6th International Symposium on Oriental Ancient Documents Studies, edited by T. A. Pang, N. N. Telitsin, and S. Yu. Ryzhenkov (St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2016), 87–88. For language obstacles in communication, see examples in this sourcebook (178–79), and for the frequent use of Latin in bilateral correspondence, see 41–42, 58, 178, and 244. Also see Gregory Afinogenov, “The Manchu Book in Eighteenth-Century St. Petersburg,” Saksaha 14 (2016–2017), 3–4; and Yanagisawa, “Some Remarks,” 81. ⮭
- EZHB, 285n1. ⮭
- EZHB, 56, provides the example of Kangxi’s letter to the Russian authorities in Russian, Manchu, and Mongolian. See also 93, 153, and 428. ⮭
- Gugong Ewen shiliao: Qing Kang-Qian jian Eguo laiwen yuandang 故宫俄文史料：清康乾間俄國來文原檔 [Documents in Russian Preserved in the National Palace Museum: Kangxi and Qianlong periods], trans. Wang Zhixiang 王之相 and ed. Liu Zerong 劉澤榮 (Beiping: Guoli Beiping gugong bowuyuan wenxianguan, 1936), Preface, 4. ⮭
- Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ, Diplomatichekoe Sobranie, 5. ⮭
- This conclusion is based on my overall study of the Lifanyuan. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 62–80. ⮭
- Ye Baichuan 叶百川, “17–18 shiji qingchao lifanyuan dui Zhong-E maoyi de jiandu yu guanli” 17–18 世纪清朝理藩院对中俄贸易的监督与管理 [Supervision and administration of the Lifanyuan over the trade between China and Russia during the 17th–18th century], Qingshi yanjiu 6 (2012): 47. ⮭
- See the discussion of the Lifanyuan zone and the Libu zone, Chia Ning, “Lifanyuan and Libu in the Qing Tribute System,” in Managing Frontiers in Qing China: The Lifanyuan and Libu Revisited, eds. Dittmar Schorkowitz and Chia Ning (Boston: Brill, 2017), 155–60. ⮭
- Vladimir Stepanovich Miasnikov (Владимир Степанович Мясников), “Lifanyuan yu Qing–E guanxi” 理藩院与清俄关系 [The Lifanyuan and Qing–Russian relations], trans. Ye Baichuan, Mingqing luncong 12 (2012): 256. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 18, note 2. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 78. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 79. ⮭
- Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian, 82–3. ⮭
- Gugong Ewen shiliao, preface by Shen Jianshi 沈兼士. ⮭
- Nicola Di Cosmo, “The Qing and Inner Asia,” 334. ⮭
- Uyunbilig, Manwen dang’an yu Qingdai bianjiang he minzu yanjiu 满文档案与清代边疆和民族研究 [Manchu archives and the study of the frontiers and ethnic groups] (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 2013), 6 and 9. ⮭
- “Qingdai Zhong–E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian” 清代中俄关系档案史料选编,” Baidu Baike, online at https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%B8%85%E4%BB%A3%E4%B8%AD%E4%BF%84%E5%85%B3%E7%B3%BB%E6%A1%A3%E6%A1%88%E5%8F%B2%E6%96%99%E9%80%89%E7%BC%96/10739693. ⮭
- “Qianlong wushisinian Zhong–E maoyi shiliao xuanyi” 乾隆五十四年中俄贸易史料选译 [Selected translations of Sino-Russian commercial sources in the fifty-fourth year of Qianlong], trans. Zhang Li, Lishi dang’an 3 (1987): 12–15, 52. ⮭
- Qingdai zhong’e guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian recorded that the Lifanyuan official Mala was among the Grand Secretariat officials and imperial guards to deliver the Shunzhi emperor’s letter to the Tsar to the Russian envoy (18n2). See Jiaqing chongxiu yitongzhi 嘉庆重修一统志 [The Jiaqing edition of the comprehensive gazetteer of the Great Qing] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986), vol. 34, “Eluosi,” 27236; Gugong ewen shiliao, preface, 2; and Miasnikov, “Lifanyuan yu Qing–E guanxi,” 255. ⮭
- Gongzhongdang Kangxichao Manwen zhupi zouzhe 宫中檔康熙朝滿文硃批奏摺 [Manchu memorials with vermillion rescript of the Kangxi reign in the National Palace], jigoubao 機構包 [packets on institutional affairs], Microfilm Box #7, First Historical Archives. ⮭
- KMY, translators’ description, 8. ⮭
- The TB volume gives the Chinese title for each tiben. I give the zouzhe title according to content of the memorial. zouzhe 1 and 2 are from Gongzhong dang Manwen zhupi zouzhe, jigoubao at the First Historical Archives in Beijing, while zouzhe 3 is from Gongzhong dang Manwen zouzhe published by the National Palace Museum. ⮭
- The Chinese 楚库柏兴 and the Russian Новоселенгинск (Novoselenginsk) in present-day Buryatia. ⮭
- KMY, 106, memorial number 206. For zouzhe 3, see its translation in the last part of this research note. ⮭
- KMY, 1069–70, memorial number 2705. ⮭
- I am deeply indebted, again, to Mårten Söderblom Saarela and Chen Kuan-chieh for offering me this archival source to support my research. See Heitudang: Qianlongchao 黑图档：乾隆朝 [The Hetu archive, Qianlong reign], ed. Zhao Huanlin 赵焕林 (Beijing: Xianzhuan tushu youxian gongsi, 2015), vol. 4, entry 110, on the seventeenth day, the third month, the fourteenth year of Qianlong [May 5, 1749], 127. ⮭
- Tong Yonggong 佟永功, “Qianlong huangdi guifan Manwen” 乾隆皇帝规范满文 [Qianlong emperor’s regulations of the Manchu language], in Man yuwen yu Manwen dang’an yanjiu 满语文与满文档案研究 [Research on Manchu language and Manchu archives] (Shenyang: Liaoning renmin chubanshe, 2009), 41. ⮭
- Miasnikov, “Lifanyuan yu Qing–E guanxi,” 257. ⮭
- EZHB, 68. ⮭
- Ji Yonghai 季永海, Manyu yufa 满语语法 [Manchu grammar] (Beijing: Zhongyang renmin daxue chubanshe, 2011), 79. ⮭
- The use of simplified or traditional Chinese characters follows the sources. ⮭
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Bantysh-Kamenskiǐ, Nikolaǐ Nikolaevich (Бантыш-Каменский, Николай Николаевич). Diplomatichekoe Sobranie Del” Mezhdu Rossiǐskim” i Kitaǐskim” Gasydarstvami s” 1619 po 1792-ǐ God Дипломатичекое Собрание Делъ Между Российскимъ и Китайскимъ Государствами съ 1619 по 1792-й Годъ [Diplomatic affairs meeting between the Russian and Chinese states from 1619 to 1792]. Казанъ: Типография Императорскаго Университета, 1882.
Daqing huidian lifanyuan shili 大清会典理藩院事例 [The collected statutes of the Qing dynasty on the Lifanyuan]. Beijing: Xizang shehui kexueyuan, 1991.
E–Zhong liangguo waijiao wenxian huibian, 1619–1792 俄中两国外交文献汇编, 1619–1792. [Collection of diplomatic correspondence between Russia and China, 1619–1792]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1982.
Gongzhongdang Kangxichao Manwen zhupi zouzhe 宫中檔康熙朝滿文硃批奏摺 [Manchu memorials with vermillion rescript of the Kangxi reign in the palace archive], jigoubao 機構包 [packets on institutional affairs], Microfilm Box #7. First Historical Archives, Beijing.
Gongzhongdang Kangxichao zouzhe 宮中檔康熙朝奏摺 [Palace memorials of the Kangxi reign]. 9 vols. Taipei: Gugong bowuyuan, 1976.
Gugong Ewen shiliao: Qing Kang–Qian jian Eguo laiwen yuandang 故宫俄文史料:清康乾間俄國來文原檔 [Documents in Russian preserved in the National Palace Museum: Original communications from Russia in the Kangxi and Qianlong periods]. Translated by Wang Zhixiang 王之相 and edited by Liu Zerong 劉澤榮. Beiping: Guoli Beiping gugong bowuyuan wenxianguan, 1936.
Heitudang: Qianlongchao 黑图档：乾隆朝 [The Hetu archive, Qianlong reign]. Edited by Zhao Huanlin 赵焕林. 24 vols. Beijing: Xianzhuang shuju, 2016.
Jiaqing chongxiu yitongzhi 嘉庆重修一统志 [The Jiaqing edition of the comprehensive gazetteer of the Great Qing]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986.
Kangxichao Manwen zhupi zouzhe quanyi 康熙朝满文朱批奏折全译 [Complete Manchu-to-Chinese translation of the Manchu memorials with vermillion rescript of the Kangxi reign]. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1996.
“Qianlong wushisinian Zhong–E maoyi shiliao xuanyi” 乾隆五十四年中俄贸易史料选译 [Selected translations of Sino-Russian commercial sources in the fifty-fourth year of Qianlong]. Translated by Zhang Li 张莉. Lishi dang’an 3 (1987): 12–15, 52.
Qingchao qianqi Lifanyuan Man-Mengwen tiben 清朝前期理藩院满蒙文题本 [Manchu-Mongolian routine memorials of the Lifanyuan in the early Qing period]. Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2010.
Qingdai Lifanyuan ziliao jilu 清代理藩院资料辑录 [Collection of the Qing dynasty Lifanyuan records]. Edited by Zhao Yuntian 赵云田. Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu zhongxin, 1988.
Qingdai Zhong-E guanxi dang’an shiliao xuanbian 清代中俄關係檔案史料選編 [Selected Qing archival materials on Sino-Russian relations]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981.
Zhang Mu 张穆. Menggu youmu ji 蒙古游牧记 [Records on the nomadic Mongols]. Taiyuan: Shanxi renmin chubanshe, 1991.
Secondary Sources
Afinogenov, Gregory. “The Manchu Book in Eighteenth-Century St. Petersburg.” Saksaha: A Journal of Manchu Studies 14 (2016–2017): 1–24.
Atwood, Christopher P. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts On File, 2004.
Chia Ning. “Lifanyuan and Libu in the Qing Tribute System.” In Managing Frontiers in Qing China: The Lifanyuan and Libu Revisited, edited by Dittmar Schorkowitz and Chia Ning, 144–83. Boston: Brill, 2017.
Chia Ning. “The Tribute System in the Qing Dynasty: From Mechanism of Empire-Building to Origins of the Fall.” In Tribute System and Rulership in Late Imperial China, edited by Ralph Kauz and Morris Rossabi, 79–98. Göttingen: Bonn University Press, 2022.
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “From Alliance to Tutelage: A Historical Analysis of Manchu-Mongol Relations before the Qing Conquest,” Frontiers of History in China 7, no. 2 (2012): 175–97.
Di Cosmo, Nicola. “The Qing and Inner Asia: 1636–1800,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank, and Peter B. Golden, 333–62. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Ji Yonghai 季永海. Manyu yufa 满语语法 [Manchu grammar]. Beijing: Zhongyang renmin daxue chubanshe, 2011.
Jiaqing chongxiu yitongzhi 嘉慶重修一統志 [Jiaqing edition of the comprehensive gazetteer of the Great Qing]. 35 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1986.
Jin Hai金海, Qimde Dorji 齐木德道尔吉, Huricha 胡日查, and Hasbagen 哈斯巴根. Qingdai menggu zhi 清代蒙古志 [Gazetteer of the Mongols in the Qing dynasty]. Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe, 2009.
Miasnikov, Vladimir Stepanovich (Мясников, Владимир Степанович). “Lifanyuan yu Qing–E guanxi” 理藩院与清俄关系 [The Lifanyuan and Qing-Russian relations]. Translated bu Ye Baichun 叶柏川 and Zhang Bonuo 张博诺. Ming-Qing luncong 12 (2012): 255–58.
Schorkowitz, Dittmar and Chia Ning, eds., Managing Frontiers in Qing China: The Lifanyuan and Libu Revisited. Boston: Brill, 2017.
Pang, Tatiana A. Descriptive Catalogue of Manchu Manuscripts and Block Prints in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Part 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2001.
Tcvetkov, Dmitrii. “About Some Little-known Translations of Chinese Literature by Illarion K. Rossohin.” In The 6th International Symposium on Oriental Ancient Documents Studies, edited by T. A. Pang, N. N. Telitsin, and S. Yu. Ryzhenkov, 87–88. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2016.
Tong Yonggong 佟永功. “Qianlong huangdi guifan Manwen” 乾隆皇帝规范满文 [Qianlong emperor’s regulations of the Manchu language]. In Man yuwen yu Manwen dang’an yanjiu 满语文与满文档案研究 [Research on Manchu language and Manchu archives], 40–57. Shenyang: Liaoning renmin chubanshe, 2009.
Yanagisawa Akira. “Some Remarks on the ‘Addendum to the Treaty of Kiakhta’ in 1768.” The Memoirs of the Toyo Bunko 63 (2005): 65–88.
Ye Baichuan. “17–18 shiji qingchao lifanyuan dui Zhong–E maoyi de jiandu yu guanli” 17–18 世纪清朝理藩院对中俄贸易的监督与管理 [Supervision and administration of the Lifanyuan over the trade between China and Russia during the 17th–18th centuries]. Qingshi yanjiu 6 (2012): 47–57.