18 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS CHINA'S RESPONSE TO THE WEST 19 the British government over forms of communication in that year appears he had a translator extract in Chinese all references concerning China.It to conclude with an apologetic statement from the British headman at was found on minute examination that this work contained merely refer- Canton.The British tributary ambassador of 1816 is recorded as refusing ences to the geography,flora and productions of China and to the clothing, to follow the usual ceremonies,but the failure of his mission is magnani- food and customs of the population along the coast,although among these mously excused on grounds of ignorance,while the edict to the English data there were many gaps.But the trading ports listed were all in foreign king reminds him that his ambassador of 1793 showed a proper respect countries and the Hsin-chou-fu mentioned was undoubtedly the same as for the ceremonies.To conclude this utterly consistent account of Britain's Singapore (transliterated Isin-ch'i-o),which the British had seized in tributary status,Liang remarks that Britain formerly presented tribute the Ch'ien-lung period (1736-1795)(sic).The Cantonese commonly called through Canton,as is fully on record year by year.27 As Professor Pritchard it Hsin-chou (lit."new island")and also Hsin-fou ("new port")and Hsin- has shown,the idea that Macartney had actually kotowed in 1793 was chtow-fou (new island port"),which no doubt had caused the censor to widely spread throughout nineteenth-century Chinese documents and ac- mistake it for the similar-sounding Hsin-chou-fu which meant "new depart- counts.28 ments and prefectures."81 Much of this barbarian lore,being in the minds of officials,found its way While this incident may seem like confusion confounded by a pun,it into their documents.In June 1844 the Shansi censor Ts'ao Lu-t'ai,for illustrates the actual vagueness of the official mind at the time of the first example,denounced the wiles of the British,their insatiable cunning and treaties.Perhaps if the censor had explicitly acknowledged the Hai-lu as deceit,and their friction with the Cantonese populace.He was particularly his source instead of tacitly copying it (or some source that had previously outraged over an incident in which a foreign woman had rushed into a copied it),he would have avoided the imperial commissioner's imputation government yamen at Chen-hai near Ningpo to pay her respects to the of muddle-headedness.But Ch'i-ying's secretaries also evidently failed to Chinese officials."What kind of propriety is this?A clear proclamation spot the Hai-l as the origin of the quoted passage. should be issued to the barbarian chieftain to make him understand what As a keen contemporary student,the British interpreter,Thomas Taylor is right."2 The censor then without acknowledgment of any source quoted Meadows,testified in 1852:"The Chinese do habitually call and consider the following statements which had originally appeared in the sections on Europeans 'barbarians';meaning by that term 'peoples in a rude,uncivilized England and Singapore in the Hai-l:The British live by their overseas state,morally and intellectually uncultivated'....Those Chinese who trade,and by getting hold of profitable spots overseas like Bengal (Ming- have had direct opportunities of learning something of our customs and ya-la),Madras (Man-ta-la-sa),and Bombay (Meng-mai).They have culture-they may amount,taking all Five Ports,to some five or six more than one hundred thousand troops and the overseas nations all fear thousand out of three hundred and sixty millions-mostly consider us them.In the Chia-ch'ing period (1796-1820)they occupied Chiu-jou-fo beneath their nation in moral and intellectual cultivation.As to those who (Singapore,lit.Johore)which the people of Canton and Fukien call have had no such opportunities,I do not recollect conversing with one,and Bsin-chou-fu.30 The censor then stated that he had recently heard of a I have conversed with many,whose previous notions of us were not anal- book,the Wan-kuo ti-lit'(Illustrated geography of all countries)in which ogous to those we entertain of savages.They are always surprised,not to the British author had marked the Chinese ports newly opened to trade as say astonished,to learn that we have surnames,and understand the family Hsin-chou-fu (lit."new departments and prefectures").This seemed to distinctions of father,brother,wife,sister,etc.:in short,that we live other- claim the ports as new British territory-"a most hateful thing to do."He wise than as a herd of cattle."82 requested that the provincial authorities ascertain whether barbarian pre- In effect,during the 1840's the barbarians were a good deal more incom- sumption had gone so far;and an imperial edict of June 18,1844,ordered prehensible to Chinese observers than the "inscrutable Celestials"were to the imperial commissioner Ch'i-ying to investigate. Western observers.As one modern historian has summarized it:"Ch'i-shan Ch'i-ying reported in September that his assistant,through barbarian learned that the woman ruler of England had chosen a mate,and he merchants,had got hold of this illustrated universal geography,the Wan- memorialized,saying:"This is naturally a country of barbarians,with the kuo ti-li t'u,in three volumes.On examination these volumes were found to nature of dogs and sheep [i.e.,fickle and greedy],fundamentally ignorant contain the barbarian writing,which there was no way to comprehend.As of rites and of modesty;how can they then know the distinction between to the year of its origin and author,and whether the ports where trade is ruler and subject,and upper and lower?'Regarding these people,Lin Tse- now conducted were included,this was all very difficult to determine.So hsui said that their legs and feet stretched out and bent with difficulty;! i I , , ! I i 18 CHINA'S UNPREPAREDNESS the British government over forms of communication in that year appears to conclude with an apologetic statement from the British headman at "Canton. The British tributary ambassador of 18 I 6 is recorded as refusing to follow the usual ceremonies, but the failure of his mission is magnani￾mously excused on grounds of ignorance, while the edict to the English king reminds him that his ambassador of 1793 showed a proper respect for the ceremonies. To conclude this utterly consistent account of Britain's tributary status, Liang remarks that 'Britain formerly presented tribute through Canton, as is fully on record year by year.27 As Professor Pritchard has shown, the idea that Macartney had actually kotowed in 1793 was widely spread throughout nineteenth-century Chinese documents and ac￾counts.28 . Much. of this barbarian lore, being in the minds of officials, found its way mto theIr documents. In June 1844 the Shansi censor Ts'ao LU-t'ai for example, denounced the wiles of the British, their insatiable cunning' and deceit, and their friction with the Cantonese populace. He was particularly outraged over an incident in which a foreign woman had rushed into a government yarnen at Chen-hai near Ningpo to pay her respects to the Chinese officials. "What kind of propriety is this? A clear proclamation should be issued to the barbarian chieftain to make him understand what IS . ng. ·ht"29Th e censor t h· en wIthout acknowledgment of any source quoted the following statements which had originally appeared in the sections on England and Singapore in the Hai-lu: The British live by their overseas trade, and by getting hold of profitable spots overseas like Bengal (Ming￾ya-la) , Madras (Man-ta-la-sa) , and Bombay (Meng-mai). They have more than one hundred thousand troops and the overseas nations all fear them. In the Chia-ch'ing period (1796-1820) they occupied Chiu-jou-fo (Singapore, lit. Johore) which the people of Canton and Fukien call Hsin-chou-fu.30 The censor then stated that he had recently heard of a book, the Wan-kuo ti-li t'u (Illustrated geography of all countries) in which the British author had marked the Chinese ports newly opened to trade as Hsin-chou-fu (lit. "new departments and prefectures"). This seemed to claim the ports as new British territory - "a most hateful thing to do." He requested that the provincial authorities ascertain whether barbarian pre￾sumption had gone so far; and an imperial edict of June 18, 1844, ordered the imperial commissioner Ch'i-ying to investigate. Ch'i-ying reported in September that his assistant, through barbarian merchants, had got hold of this illustrated universal geography the Wan￾kuo ti-li t'u, in three volumes. On examination these volumes we~e found to contain the barbarian writing, which there was no way to comprehend. As to the year of its origin and author, and whether the ports where trade is now conducted were included, this was all very difficult to determine. So CHINA~S RESPONSE TO THE WEST 19 he had a translator extract in Chinese all references concerning China. It was found on minute examination that this work contained merely refer￾ences to the geography, flora and productions of China and to the clothing, food and customs of the population along the coast, although among these data there were many gaps. But the trading ports listed were all in foreign countries and the Hsin-chou-fu mentioned was undoubtedly the same as Singapore (transliterated Hsin-ch'i-p'o), which the British had seized in the Ch'ien-Iung period (1736-1795) (sic). The Cantonese commonly called it Hsin-chou (lit. "new island") and also Hsin-fou ("new port") and Hsin￾chou-fou ("new island port"), which no doubt had caused the censor to mistake it for the similar-sounding Hsin-chou-fu which meant "new depart￾ments and prefectures." 31 While this incident may seem like confusion confounded by a pun, it illustrates the actual vagueness of the official mind at the time of the first treaties. Perhaps if the censor had explicitly acknowledged the Hai-lu as his source instead of tacitly copying it (or some source that had previously copied it), he would have avoided the imperial commissioner's imputation of muddle-headedness. But Ch'i-ying's secretaries also evidently failed to spot the H ai-lu as the origin of the quoted passage. As a keen contemporary student, the British interpreter, Thomas Taylor Meadowsj testified in 1852: "The Chinese do habitually call and consider EuropeanS 'barbarians'; meaning by that term 'peoples in a rude, uncivilized state, morally and intellectually uncultivated' .... Those Chinese who have had direct opportunities of learning something of our customs and culture - they may amount, taking all Five Ports, to some five or six thousand out of three hundred and sixty millions --,- mostly consider us beneath their nation in moral and intellectual cultivation. As to those who have had no such opportunities, I do not recollect conversing with one, and I have conversed with many, whose previous notions of us were not anal￾ogous to those we entertain of savages. They are always surprised, not to say astonished, to learn that we have surnames, and understand the family distinctions of father, brother, wife, sister, etc.; in short, that we live other￾wise than as a herd of cattle." 32 In effect, during the 1840'S the barbarians were a good deal more incom￾prehensible to Chinese observers than the "inscrutable Celestials" were to Western observers. As one modern historian has summarized it: "Ch'i-shan learned that the woman ruler of England had chosen a mate, and he memorialized, saying: 'This is naturally a country of barbarians, with the nature of dogs and sheep [Le., fickle and greedy], fundamentally igno~ant of rites and of modesty; how can they then know the distinction between ruler and subject, and upper and lower?' Regarding these people, Lin Tse￾hsU said that their legs and feet stretched out and bent with difficulty;