Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:16:32.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russia's Special Position in China During the Early Ch'ing Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Immanuel C. Y. Hsü
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the K'ang-hsi (1662-1722) and Yung-cheng (1723-35) periods, Russia was the only foreign country with which China maintained treaty relations, the only “Western” state to which China sent diplomatic missions, and the only foreign power granted religious, commercial, and educational privileges in Peking. These were most unusual phenomena in Chinese foreign relations in view of China's claim to universal overlordship. As the Celestial Empire and the Middle Kingdom, China normally maintained no treaty relations with other states, sent no diplomatic missions abroad, and allowed no foreign country to keep permanent establishments in the capital city of Peking. It may therefore be asked, what differentiated Russia from the other foreign states in Chinese eyes and what prompted the Chinese to accord Russia preferential treatment?

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 1964 , pp. 688 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1963

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

1 In reviewing the early Ch'ing relations with Russia, Tseng Kuo-fan, the eminent statesman of the late Ch'ing period, remarked in 1867 : “When we negotiated on boundaries and trade with Russia (in 1689 and 1727), we actually treated her with the etiquette due an enemy state, which was entirely different from that accorded dependencies like Korea.” See Ch'ou-pan i-wu shih-mo (“The Complete Account of the Management of Barbarian Affairs“), T'ung-chih period, 54 : 2b-3.

2 Ravenstein, E. G., The Russians on the Amur : Its Discovery, Conquest, and Colonisation (London, 1861), pp. 26–27 Google Scholar.

3 For the activities of Poiarkov, Khabarov, and Stepanov, see ibid., pp. 9-33; Golder, F. A., Russian Expansion on the Pacific, 1641-1850 (Cleveland, 1914), pp. 33–66 Google Scholar; Baddeley, John F., Russia, Mongolia, China (London, 1919), II, 195 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 “Ch'in-ting p'ing-ting Lo-ch'a fang-lüeh, erh” (“The Imperial Edition of the Outline of Pacifying the Russians, Part II“), in Shuo-fang pei-sheng (“A Manual of Northern Places“), ed. Ho Ch'iu-t'ao, opening section, 6 : 16b-17 (hereafter cited as SFPS).

5 For the founding of Albazin, see Sebes, S.J., Joseph, The Jesuits and the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) (Rome, 1961), pp. 24–25 Google Scholar; also Ravenstein, op. cit., p. 38. However, Baddeley, John F., in his Russia, Mongolia, China, quoted above, stated that Fort Albazin was built in 1666 (p. 195)Google Scholar.

6 For a brief account of Galdan, see Hummel, Arthur W., Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (Washington, D.C., 1943-44), I, 265–68Google Scholar.

7 Gaston, Cahen, Histoire des relations de la Russie avec la Chine, 1689-1730 (Paris, 1912), p. 137 Google Scholar; Baddeley, op. cit., II, 42-43, 177.

8 Howorth, Henry H., History of the Mongols (London, 1876), I, 627–28Google Scholar; Sebes, op. cit., p. 74.

9 Cahen, op. cit., pp. 136, 139, 140, 149.

10 ibid., pp. 26-27.

11 Sebes, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

12 SFPS, 6 : 16b-17.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., opening section,

15 Golder, op. cit., p. 61.

16 Ibid., p. 63; Ravenstein, op. cit., p. 52.

17 Sebes, op. cit., pp. 70-71, 75.

18 For the negotiations of the Treaty of Nerchinsk, see two recent works : Joseph Sebes, op. cit., especially chaps. 3-9; (Moscow, 1958). For text of the Treaty of Nerchinsk, see 1689-1916 : (img) (Moscow, 1958), pp. 9-11.

19 Douglas Jackson, W. A., The Russo-Chinese Borderlands (Princeton, 1962), p. 112 Google Scholar.

20 Cahen, op. cit., pp. 51, 79 (note 1), 138-39.

21 SFPS, opening section, 1 : 23, imperial edict, K'ang-hsi twenty-ninth year.

22 Cahen, op. cit., p. 138.

23 For the story of K'ang-hsi's expedition and Galdan's defeat, see Sheng-chia ch'incheng Ko-erh-tan fang-lüeh (“A Brief Account of His Imperial Highness's Personal Expedition against Galdan“), 1696; Howorth, op. cit., I, 622-40.

24 Wei Yüan, Hai-kuo t'u-chih (“An Illustrated Gazetteer of the Maritime Countries“), 54 : 1.

25 I-shan, Hsiao, Ch'ing-tai t'ung-shih (“A General History of the Ch'ing Dynasty“) (rev. ed.; Taipei, 1962), I, 82; II, 159Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., II, 160.

27 Ku-kung O-wen shih-liao (“Documents in Russian Preserved in the National Palace Museum of Peiping“), ed. Wang Chih-hsiang and Liu Tse-jung (Peiping, 1936), Introduction, pp. 12-13 (hereafter cited as OWSL). See also Chang Wei-hua, “T'u-erh-hu-t'e hsihsi yii T'u-li-ch'en chih ch'u-shih” (“The Westward Migration of the Torguts and the Mission of Tulisen“), Pien-cheng kung-lun (“Frontier Affairs“), II, Nos. 3-4-5, pp. 30-31 (June, 1943).

28 Cahen, op. cit., p. 131. The Torguts eventually returned to China in 1768. For a complete account of their return, see “T'u-erh-hu-t'e ch'üan-pu kuei-shun chi” (“The Submission and Return of the Entire Torgut Tribe“), in Yü-chih-wen (“Imperial Writings“), Series II, ll : 6b-10b.

29 For details of Tulisen's mission, see Cahen, op. cit., pp. 115-33; Sir Staunton, G. T., Narrative of the Chinese Embassy to the Khan of the Tourgouth Tartars, in the Years 1712, 13, 14, and 15, by the Chinese Ambassador, and Published by the Emperor's Authority, at Pekin (London, 1821)Google Scholar.

30 For allowing the Chinese mission to visit Ayüki, the Russians were blamed by the Oirat leader, Cewang Arabdan, who insisted that the objective of Tulisen was to negotiate a Chinese-Torgut alliance against him. See Cahen, op. cit., p. 147.

31 Cahen, op. cit., pp. 127-28, 130.

32 For a study of this work, see Shunjü, Imanishi, “Explanatory Notes on Tulisen's I-yü-lu,” Studia Serica, Vol. IX, Part I (Sept., 1950), 1–17Google Scholar.

33 OWSL, pp. 12-13.

34 Cahen, op. cit., pp. 165-66, 168.

35 ibid., p. 149.

36 ibid., p. 191.

37 Jackson, op. cit., p. 112.

38 For a study of the Treaty of Kiakhta, see Ch'en, Agnes Fang-chih, “Chinese Frontier Diplomacy : Kiakhta Boundary Treaties and Agreements,” The Yenching Journal of Social Studies, Vol. IV, No. 2 (Feb., 1949), 151–205Google Scholar. For texts of the various agreements pertaining to the Treaty of Kiakhta, see , op. cit., pp. 11-22.

39 Cahen, op. cit., p. 271.

40 OWSL, p. 11 of the Introduction; pp. 299-303, document 21.

41 For a study of the mission, see Mark, Mancall, “China's First Missions to Russia, 1729-1731,” Papers on China, Vol. IX (1956), East Asia Regional Studies Seminar, Harvard University Google Scholar

42 OWSL, p. 13 of the Introduction; pp. 307, 312, document 23.

43 For the story of the Ch'ing campaign against Galdan Cereng, see Hsiao I-shan, op. cit., I, 836-43; also Ch'en Fu-kuang, Yu-Ch'ing i-tai chih Chung-O kuan-hsi (“Sino-Russian Relations during the Ch'ing Period Exclusively“) (Kunming, 1947), p. 58.

44 Wein Yüan, “O-lo-ssu meng-p'in chi” (“A Record of Diplomatic Relations with Russia“), SFPS, 52 : 10b.

45 SFPS, opening section, l : 23b-24.

46 For a discussion of the Chinese concepts of wai-fan and shu-kuo, see Fu Lo-shu, “Sino-Western Relations during the K'ang-hsi Period, 1661-1722, ” unpubl. Ph.D. diss. (University of Chicago, 1952), pp. 10-12. Miss Fu's statement on page 130 that “some Chinese regarded the Russians as a kind of Mongol” is open to question.

47 Tulisen, , “I-yüeh lu,” SFPS, 43 : 7 Google Scholar.

48 Hsiao I-shan, op. cit., I, 764-65.

49 Cahen, op. cit., p. 165.

50 OWSL, pp. 9-10 of the Introduction.

51 Mancall, op. cit., p. 93.

52 Yü Cheng-hsi, “O-lo-ssu tso-ling” (“On the Russian Company“), SFPS, 47 : lb-2, 4b.

53 Meng Ssu-ming, “ T h e E-lo-ssu Kuan (Russian Hostel) in Peking, ” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, XXIII (1960-61), 29-34.

54 ibid., p. 20.

55 SFPS, 12 : 5.

56 Cahen, op. cit., pp. 97-98. Figures given by the Russian governor of Nerchinsk, Ivan Nikolev, J u l y 25/Aug. 4, 1698.

57 Liu Hsüan-min, “Chung-O tsao-ch'i mao-i k'ao” (“A Study of Early Russo-Chinese Commercial Relations“), Yen-ching hsüeh-pao (“Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies“), XXV (1939), 165.

58 Agnes Fang-chih Ch'en, op. cit., p p . 155-56, 172.

59 SFPS, 12 : 3-4.

60 Meng Ssu-ming, op. cit., p. 33. 61 ibid., p. 28.

62 ibid., p. 32.

63 Ibid., pp. 34-39; SFPS, 12 : 5b.

64 SFPS, 12 : 3-5. It cost China more than 1, 000 rubles and 9, 000 pounds of rice annually to support these Russian students and the religious mission in Peking. See Timkowskix, George (E. F. Timkovskii), Travels of the Russian Mission through Mongolia to China, and Residence in Peking, in the Years 1820-1821, trans. Lloyd, H. E. (London, 1827)Google Scholar, I, 4.

65 For the works of the Russian religious mission, see (4 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1852-66).

66 From its establishment in 1728 until 1861, the Russian Orthodox mission in Peking was officially described as “religious and diplomatic.” See Cahen, op. cit., p. 264.