Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:56:58.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chʻing-i and Chinese Policy Formation During the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Lloyd E. Eastman
Get access

Extract

The tardy and ineffectual response of China to the Western challenge remains one of the most significant problems confronting historians. This article attempts to shed light on one of the factors that appears to have contributed in some measure to the decline of the Chinese empire in the nineteenth century, viz., chʻing-i, or literati opinion. An initial section sketches the historical origins of chʻing-i. Then, I trace the influences that chʻing-i brought to bear on the process of policy formation during the early 1880's, when the Chinese empire fought a war with France in a vain attempt to save an imperial tributary from Western domination. Finally, I speculate upon the course the empire might have taken had not the throne—a term that here refers essentially to the Empress Dowager Tzʻu-hsi—had to tack and shift to meet the demands of chʻing-i.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , August 1965 , pp. 595 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbreviations used in footnotes:

1 Previous studies that have dealt with the problem of ch'ing-i are: Immanuel Hsü, C. Y., China's Entrance into the Family of Nations: The Diplomatic Phase, 1858–1880 (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 200CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim; Yen-p'ing, Hao, “T'ung-kuang Hsin-cheng-chung te so-wei ‘ch'ing-i’” [“The so-called ‘ch'ing-i’ during die reforms of the T'ung-chih and Kuang-hsü Reigns“] (unpublished Bachelor's thesis, Taiwan National University, 1958Google Scholar), and Hao, , “A Study of the Ch'ing-liu Tang: The ‘Disinterested’ Scholar-Official Group (1875–1884),” Papers on China (Cambridge, Mass.: East Asian Research Center, Harvard), XVI (Dec. 1962), 40–65.Google Scholar Suggestions given to me by Messrs. Hsü and Hao have been of great assistance in formulating several of the concepts in this article. I am also indebted to Professor Kung-chuan Hsiao who kindly commented on an early draft of the article.

2 “Pure discussion” is an unsatisfactory translation, because an explanation as elaborate as that for the Chinese term is required. “Public opinion,” on the other hand, may be misleading, for ch'ing-i suggests righteousness which die English term lacks (this is true also of the Chinese term kung-lun°, which is frequently interchangeable with ch'ing-i). Furthermore, ch'ing-i was used exclusively by a Confucian-educated elite and was quite dissimilar from opinions expressed by the “public.” Note that Immanuel Hsü has translated ch'ing-i as “public opinion,” but he did so “for the sake of simplicity” (p. 200).

3 Low and middle ranking officials were those below the third rank. Thus, grand councilors, grand secretaries, presidents and vice presidents of the six boards, governors general and governors of the provinces, and similar officials who held office at the policy-forming level, could not, strictly speaking, be ch'ing-i. Some of the distinctions between these three strata within officialdom are described in Ho, Ping-ti, The Ladder of Success in Imperial China: Aspects of Social Mobility, 1368–1911 (New York and London, 1962), pp. 24–26.Google Scholar

4 The phrase is borrowed from Schwartz, Benjamin, In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), p. 15.Google Scholar

5 Hsü, p. 200. Some good examples of ch'ing-i poetry during the Sino-French controversy are in Ying, A, ed., Chung-Fa Chan-cheng Wen-hsüeh Chi [“A Collection of Literature during the Sino-French War“] (Peking, 1957), pp. 22Google Scholar, 25, 28, 32, 36, 68, 87.

6 Generally, officials of the third rank or higher enjoyed this privilege. There were exceptions. Censors and diarists of the emperor's movements, among others, might also submit memorials directly to the court. See Ch'in-ting Ta-ch'ing Hui-tien [“Collected Statutes of the Ch'ing Dynasty“], Kuang-hsü edition, 1899 (Taipei, 1963), 82Google Scholar, 10b–11a.

7 The memorial of a subordinate official would be submitted in the form of a supplementary memorial (fu) to the memorial by the higher official. Officials who submitted the memorial of a subordinate in this fashion were expected to be in general sympathy with the opinions expressed therein. However, officials who did not agree to submit memorials for lesser officials might be exposing themselves to criticism. See the accusations levied by a censor, Wu Hsün, against one Ling-kuei. Ling-kuei, a chancellor of the Hanlin Academy, had agreed, but only after repeated entreaties, to submit memorials in behalf of several compilers in the Academy (CFCS, 15, 15b–16a, dcmt. 528). Shih-erh Ch'ao Tung-hua-lu [“Tung-hua Documents of Twelve Reigns“] (Taipei, 1963), Hsien-fcng Reign, I, 177bGoogle Scholar, March 20, 1853 (Hsien-feng 3/2/II).

8 For instance, during the Later Dynasty, Han (Fan Yeh, Hou Han Shu [“History of die Later Han Dynasty”] [Shanghai: T'ung-wen Shu-chü, 1894], ch. 104a, pp. 19b–20aGoogle Scholar ) and during the Cheng-te (1506–1521) and Chia-ching (1522–1566) reigns of the Ming Dynasty (Chao I, Nien-erh-shih Cha-chi [“Studies from the Twenty-two Dynastic Histories”] [Taipei, 1958], II, 507).

9 See below, p. 609.

10 Chang-ju, T'ang, Wei Chin Nan-pei Ch'ao Shih Lun-ts'ung [“Collected Essays on the History of the Wei, the Chin, and the Northern and Soudiern Dynasties”] (Peking, 1955), pp. 86Google Scholar and 290. See also Ying-shih, Yü, “Han Chin chih Chi Shih chih Hsin Tzu-chüeh yü Hsin Ssu-ch'ao” [“The New Self-consciousness and New Thought Tide of Literati between die Han and Chin Dynasties”], Hsin-ya Hsüeh-pao [“New Asia Journal”], IV, 1 (Aug. 1, 1959), 58–60.Google Scholar

11 Balázs, Etienne, “La Crise Sociale et la Philosophie à la fin des Han,” T'oung Pao XXXIX (1949), 87–88.Google Scholar This article has been translated to English in Balázs, Etienne, Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy, ed. Wright, Arthur F. (New Haven and London, 1964), pp. 187–225.Google Scholar

12 Balázs, pp. 87–88.

13 Hsien-fan, Huang, Sung-tai Tai-hsüeh-sheng Chiu-kuo Yün-tung [“National Salvation Movement of Students of the Imperial Academy during the Sung Dynasty”] (Shanghai, 1936), pp. 73–78.Google Scholar See also Hao, “T'ung-Kuang … ‘ch'ing-i’,” P. 5a; Hsü, pp. 200–201.

14 See Hucker, Charles O., “The Tung-lin Movement of the Late Ming Period,” Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. Fairbank, John K. (Chicago, 1957), pp. 132–162.Google Scholar

15 LJC, 40, 27a, May 5, 1883 (KH9/4/25).

16 The Journal was edited by Liang in Yokohama. See Fairbank, John K. and Liu, Kwang-ching, Modern China: A Bibiliographical Guide to Chinese Worlds, 1898–1937 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), p. 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kung-chen, Ko, Chung-kuo Pao-hsüeh-shih [A History of Chinese Journalism] (Peking, 1955), pp. 124Google Scholar and 132. The Ch'ing-i was published by Chang Fang and edited by Hu T'ieh in Shanghai and Nanking. I have seen only the issues of volume 2, covering the year 1948, that are in the Harvard-Yenching Library.

17 Wright, Mary Clabaugh, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism (Stanford, 1957), p. 7.Google Scholar

18 Kuo-fan, Tseng, “Tsou-i” [“Memorials”], Tseng Wen-cheng Kung Ch'üan-chi [“The Complete Works of Tseng Kuo-fan”] (Changsha, 1876), 35Google Scholar, 40a.

19 Hsü, p. 203.

20 Hsü, pp. 203–206; Hao, “A Study,” passim.

21 Hsü, p. 182.

22 Hao, “T'ung-Kuang … ‘Ch'ing-i’,” p. 3a, citing LJC.

23 Hsü, pp. 182–183.

24 Hsü, pp. 188–189.

25 Lin, T. C., “Li Hung-chang: His Korea Policies, 1870–1885,” Chinese Social and Political Science Review, XIX, 2 (July 1935), 218Google Scholar; Thomas William Ayers, “Chang Chih-tung and Chinese Educational Change” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard, 1959), p. 107.

26 Djang, Chu, “War and Diplomacy over Ili,” Chinese Social and Political Science Review, XX, 3 (Oct. 1936), 379–382Google Scholar; Ayers, p. 119.

27 Ch'ing-liu may be rendered literally as “pure group.” Hao Yen-p'ing refers to them as the “disinterested scholar-official group” (“A Study,” p. 40), while Ayers translates the term as the “purification clique” (p. 89). Note that “liu” in the phrase Ch'ing-liu means not stream or current, but, as Prof. Immanuel Hsü has pointed out, a “circle, group, coterie etc.” (letter to the author, July 17, 1962). Some writers refer to the group as the Ch'ing-liu Tang, which Hao translates as “pure current party” (“A Study,” p. 40). This phrase is, however, a redundancy, because “liu” and “tang” are here similar in meaning. Writers during the 1880's avoided the redundancy, for, to my knowledge, they never spoke of “Ch'ing-liu Tang.”

28 Ch'ing-shih [“History of the Ch'ing Dynasty”] (Taipei, 1961), VIGoogle Scholar, 4906, 4937 and 4939. Hao Yen-p'ing would limit the membership of the group to nine, adding Li Hung-tsao and Liu En-p'u to those named above (“A Study,” p. 41). Ayers makes no mention of Liu En-p'u and denies that Li Hungtsao was a member (p. 93). He adds, however, the names of Hsü Chih-hsiang and Sheng-yü (pp. 89–90), though Hao specifically denies Sheng-yü's membership. Li Hung-tsao was considered a leader of the Ch'ing-liu, although he was not a member of that group (Hummel, Arthur W., ed., Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period [1644–1912] [Washington, 1943], p. 472Google Scholar; Ayers, p. 93). Ku Hung-ming, a contem porary of the movement and personal acquaintance of many of the participants, has also pointed to Ch'i-t'ai, Ch'en as a “well-known” member (The Story of a Chinese Oxford Movement [Shanghai, 1912], pp. 19–20Google Scholar ). And Sun I-yen referred to himself as Ch'ing-liu—although Li Tz'u-ming noted that, ironically, Sun smoked opium and neglected his official duties. (See LJC, 33, 90b, March 26, 1880 [KH6/2/16]). The term Ch'ing-liu was not, as has been suggested elsewhere, a pejorative designation. Chang P'ei-lun, for example, like Sun I-yen, referred to his own activities as being “Ch'ing-liu” (“Chien-yü Chi” [“The Collected Writings of Chang P'ei-lun”], CFCC, IV, 374).

29 Hao Yen-p'ing, by using a different list of members, found that five of nine were from Chihli, which indicates a slightly stronger regional tint (“A Study,” p. 42). Ayers, on the other hand, concluded that the Ch'ing-liu was not bound by regional ties (pp. 89–90).

30 Sources suggesting this list of members are LJC, 38, 5a, June 23, 1882 (KH8/5/8); LJC, 42, 93b, Sept. I, 1884 (KH10/7/12); Hummel, p. 472.

31 These northerners were one of Li Tz'u-ming's favorite passions, and he referred often to diem in his diary. To cite but three of the more interesting entries: LJC, 38, 5a, June 23, 1882 (KH8/5/8); 42, 48a, June 14, 1884 (KH10/5/21); 43, 3b, Sept. 15, 1884 (KH10/7/26).

32 Hao, “A Study,” p. 42 and p. 60, note 13.

33 LJC, 42, 48a, June 14, 1884 (KHIO/5/21).

34 “A demand aggregate consists of persons making the same demand” but who “need be engaged in no interactions with one another. …” Lasswell, Harold D. and Kaplan, Abraham, Power and Society: A Framework, for Political Inquiry (New Haven and London, 1950), p. 18.Google Scholar

35 Ch'ang-yu, Liu, “Liu Wu-shen Kung I-shu” [“The Collected Writings of Liu Ch'ang-yu”], CFCC, I, 88–89.Google Scholar

36 The quote is that of M. de Carné, a French political officer who had been attached to an official government expedition exploring in Vietnam. His opinions were published in 1872, and Colquhoun suggests that they “were doubtless read with great interest by the Pekin Foreign Office.” Colquhoun, Archibald Ross, The Truth about Tonquin (London, 1888), p. 133.Google Scholar

37 CFCS, 2, 7a–b, dcmt. 36; CFCS, 2, 8b, dcmt. 37.

38 CFCS, 12, 10a, dcmt. 374.

39 CFCS, 21, 9a, dcmt. 906.

40 Ford, Harold P., “Modern Weapons and die Sino-Soviet Estrangement,” The China Quarterly, 18 (April-June, 1964), p. 162.Google Scholar

41 Chih-tung, Chang, “Chang Wen-hsiang Kung Ch'üan-chi” [“The Complete Writings of Chang Chihtung”], CFCC, IV, 518–519.Google Scholar

42 Ibid.

43 [H. Billot], L'Affaire du Tonkin; histoire diplomatique de l'établissement de notre protectorat sur l'Annam et de notre conflit avec la Chine, 1882–1885 (Paris, [1888]), p. 58.

44 See below, pp. 604–605.

45 “CSTL,” CFCC, VI, 111–112. The memorial mentioned is from Lung Chan-lin (ibid., 113–114).

46 CFCS, 15, 5b–6a, dcmt. 514; CFCS, 15, 37a, dcmt. 557.

47 LJC, 41, 56a, Dec. 25, 1883 (KH9/11/26).

48 LJC, 38, 5a, June 23, 1882 (KH8/5/8); LJC, 42, 48a, June 14, 1884 (KH10/5/21); LJC, 42, 48b, June 15, 1884 (KH10/5/22).

49 Ayers, pp. 132–133.

50 Sung-tao, Kuo, “Yang-chih Shu-shih I-chi” [“The Collected Writings of Kuo Sung-tao”], CFCC, IV, 594.Google Scholar See also Kuo, p. 584; and Chia-mei, Chou, “Ch'i-pu-fa Chai Ch'üan-chi” [“The Complete Writings of Chou Chia-mei”], CFCC, IV, 547.Google Scholar

51 Ju-lun, Wu, “Tung-ch'eng Wu Hsien-sheng Ch'üan-shu” [“The Complete Writings of Wu Ju-lun”], CFCC, IV, 633.Google Scholar

52 CFCS, 18, 24b, dcmt. 682.

53 CFCS, 14, 12a, dcmt. 485.

54 CFCS, 21, 8a, dcmt. 906; CFCS, 14, 28b, dcmt. 500.

55 CFCS, 17, 8b, dcmt. 599. This was an accusation that emperors of the 18th century had admonished their officials to refrain even from hinting. (Nivison, David S., “Introduction,” Confucianism in Action, ed. Nivison, David S. and Wright, Arthur F. [Stanford, 1959], p. 21.Google Scholar)

56 Hung-chang, Li, “Li Wen-chung Kung Ch'üan-chi” [“The Complete Writings of Li Hung-chang”], CFCC, IV, 8.Google Scholar

57 Billot, p. 63. Ch'ung-hou had in 1879 attempted to negotiate a settlement of the Hi controversy with the Russians. The uproar created by his colleagues in China, who became enraged by the terms of the treaty, caused Ch'ung-hou to be sentenced to death by decapitation. It is possible that his life was saved only through foreign intervention. (Hummel, pp. 210–211).

58 Eastman, Lloyd E., “Reactions of Chinese Officials to Foreign Aggression: A Study of the Sino-French Controversy, 1880–1885” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard, 1962), pp. 188–191.Google Scholar

59 LJC, 42, 48b, June 15, 1884 (KH10/5/22).

60 “CSTL,” CFCC, VI, 3.

61 Chou, , CFCC, IV, 542Google Scholar; Ch'ing-shih, IV, 2806 and VI, 4904.

62 Wu, , CFCC, IV, 634.Google Scholar

63 Fairbank, John K. and Teng, Ssu-yü, Ch'ing Administration: Three Studies (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 39Google Scholar; Morrison, Esther, “The Modernization of the Confucian Bureaucracy: An Historical Study of Public Administration” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Radcliffe, 1959), pp. 306Google Scholar and 313–314.

64 An-shih, Mou, Yang-wu Yün-tung [“The Foreign Affairs Movement”] (Shanghai, 1956), pp. 27–29Google Scholar; Wen-Ian, Fan, Chung-kuo Chin-tai-shih [“Modern Chinese History”] (Peking, 1955), p. 207.Google Scholar Hsü, p. 205; and Hao, “A Study,” pp. 44 and 48 have also offered this interpretation.

65 Ku Hung-ming, Appendix I, p. 107.

66 Mou, p. 27. The complete quote is in Kuan-ying, Cheng, “Sheng-shih Wei-yen” [“Warnings to a Seemingly Prosperous Age”], Wu-hsü Pien-fa [“The 1898 Reform Movement”] (Shanghai, 1957), I, 97.Google Scholar

67 W. T. de Bary writes of Tsung-hsi, Huang, whose goal was a traditional Confucian one: “the ideal is not a balance of interests or an equilibrium of countervailing powers. … The only secure system is one which places its reliance on men of character and ability.” “Chinese Despotism and the Confucian Ideal: A Seventeenth-century View,” Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. Fairbank, John K. (Chicago, 1957), p. 197.Google Scholar

68 Hsin-an, Yao, “Hai-fang yü Sai-fang te Cheng-lun” [“The Controversy over Maritime and Internal Frontier Defenses”], Chung-kuo Chin-tai-shih Lun-tsfung [“A Collection of Essays Regarding Recent Chinese History”], ed. Hsiang-hsiang, Wu, et al. (Taipei, 1956), 1st Ser., V, 209.Google Scholar

69 Hummel, p. 297.

70 Hummel, p. 875.

71 Ayers, pp. 93–98.

72 Eastman, pp. 250–253.

73 Ibid., pp. 254–255.

74 CSL, 200. 1b, Jan. 31, 1885 (KH10/12/16).

75 Shih-erh Ch'ao Tung-hua-lu, Kuang-hsü Reign, III, 1650, April 8, 1884 (KH10/3/13); LJC, 42, 48b, June 15, 1884 (KH10/5/22).

76 Chih-hsiang, Hsü, “Chia-ting Hsien-sheng Tsou-i” [“Memorials of Hsü Chih-hsiang”], Chia-ting Ch'ang-pai Erh Hsien-sheng Tsou-i [“Memorials of Hsü Chih-hsiang and Pao-t'ing”], ed. Chen-wu, Hsia, (1901), 2Google Scholar, 16a, Jan. 10, 1885 (KH10/11/25).

77 Hsü's penchant for indirection is exemplified by a memorial that he wrote in 1884 criticizing a set of peace proposals (the Sheng-Ristelhueber proposals) without mentioning the proposals or their relation to a peace settlement. (Hsü Chih-hsiang, 1, 11b-14a, Oct. 31, 1884 [KH10/9/13]).

78 CSL, 198, 10b, Jan. 10, 1885 (KH10/11/25).

79 CSL, 199, 7a, Jan. 22, 1885 (KH10/12/7).

80 CSL, 199, 7a–b, Jan. 22, 1885 (KH10/12/7).

81 CSL, 200, 1b, Jan. 31, 1885 (KH10/12/16).

82 Hsieh, Pao Chao, The Government of China (Baltimore, 1925), p. 35.Google Scholar

83 Craig, Albert M., Choshu in the Meiji Restoration (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 372–374.Google Scholar

84 There can be no doubt that the empress dowager gave primacy to political values, as her entire career emphatically demonstrates. It is impossible to assert with confidence, however, that had there been less domestic opposition she would have seen that further reforms on the Western model would have increased her power. Her value system suggests this as a strong possibility, which, for the purposes of the point I am making in this section, is the important issue. That she was inclined to support Westernizing reforms is suggested in Immanuel C. Y. Hsü, pp. 204–205; and Ayers, p. 137.

85 Eisenstadt, S. N., The Political Systems of Empire (London, 1963), pp. 156–162.Google Scholar

86 Merriam, Charles Edward, Political Power: Its Composition and Incidence (New York and London, 1934). p. 180.Google Scholar

87 Continued vitality of ch'ing-i was particularly apparent in the controversy that erupted in 1889 over the proposed construction of a railroad from Tientsin to die neighborhood of Peking. See To, Wu, “Ching-T'ung T'ieh-lu te Cheng-i” [“The Dispute over die Tientsin-Tungchow Railroad”], Chung-kuo Chin-tat Ching-chi-shih Yen-chiu Chi-k'an [“Researches on the Modern Economic History of China”], 4, 1 (May 1936), pp. 67–132.Google Scholar