Abstract
On September 26, 1792, George Lord Viscount Macartney, the first British envoy ever to reach China, sailed from Portsmouth with a commission as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China. The aims of the mission were to put Sino-British relations upon a treaty basis, redress various grievances in the existing commercial arrangements at Canton, open new ports to trade in north and central China, and, if possible, establish a permanent legation in China. As the objectives of the embassy were important and as it would establish precedents for future British missions to China, the government had planned it with care, and had placed at its head an especially competent diplomat and colonial administrator. The British were well aware that the Chinese considered foreign embassies as tribute-bearing missions and generally, if not always, demanded that the ambassador perform the kotow before the Emperor.
Notes
For the official Chinese regulations for the reception of foreign envoys during the Ch'ien-lung period see the Ch'in-ting Ta Ch'ing hui-tien: Ch'ien-lung
[Collected administrative statutes of the Ch'ing dynasty: Ch'ien-lung period] (Peking, 1764), ch. 56, pp. 1–8b, especially section 9, as translated by
[Current ceremonials of the Ch'ing period] (Peking, 1756), see The crucial years of early Anglo-Chinese relations, 1750–1800, Research studies of the State College of Washington, vol. IV, nos. 3–4 (Pullman, Washington, 1936), chaps. 7–9; “Lord Macartney's journal of the China embassy,” in
See the Tz'u hai
dictionary (Shanghai: Chung-hua publishing co., 1936–37) and
An authentic account of an embassy from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China (London: G. Nicol, 1797), vol. 2, pp. 232, 256 and passim.
As late as 1859 the American Minister John E. Ward was not given an audience because he refused to perform even one kneeling and three head-knockings. In 1873 the foreign diplomats at Peking demanded and were granted by the T'ung-chih emperor an audience without the performance of the kotow in any form. See
Tung-hua ch'Han-lu
(Peking: Shan-ch'eng-t'ang, 1887–90), Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 118, p. 3. This is a great collection of documents relating to the Ch'ing dynasty compiled principally by Wang Hsien-ch'ien 
(1847–1917). The edition referred to is found at Columbia and Cornell. For a detailed account of the Tung-hua lu see
Kuo-ch'ao jou-yiian chi
[Record of the Chinese court's graciousness to strangers] (Canton: Kuang-ya shu-chü, 1891), ch. 6, p. 3.
Melanges asiatiques (Paris: Dondey-Dupré, 1825–26), vol. 1, pp. 440–41. Rémusat's evidence, a considerable portion of which is drawn from the records of the Amherst embassy in 1816, is as follows: When Lord Amherst was asked to perform the kotow he asked to be exempted as in the case of Lord Macartney. “Les négociateurs chinois nièrent avec force qu'on eût accordé au lord [Macartney] une exemption si contraire aux lois de l'empire; ils citèrent les gazettes officielles et les édits qui exprimaient précisément le contraire, et appelèrent en témoignage sir George [Thomas] Staunton lui-même, qui avait assisté à l'audience de lord Macartney; mais sir George, craignant les effets d'une réponse catégorique, s'excusa sur sa grande jeunesse au moment de cette réception. Enfin l'empereur [Chia-ch'ing] lui-même fit sortir un édit dans lequel il déclarait se souvenir très- exactement d'avoir vu de ses propres yeux lord Macartney pratiquer le kheou-theou devant son père [Ch'ien-lung]. …
Toutes les personnes qui composaient l'ambassade de 1793, affirment que lord Macartney a été dispensé des cérémonies du kheou-theou, et il est certain qu'en toute autre matière cette simple assertion de la part de personnes si respectables et si dignes de foi, ne devrait pas permettre le plus léger doute. Je n'opposerai à ce témoignage unanime, ni les insinuations d'Anderson, répétées et malignement interprétées tout récemment par un pamphlétair anglais,* ni même le témoignage peu désintéressé des mandarins chinois [at the time of the Amherst Embassy, 1816]. Toutefois celui de l'empereur me parait mériter quelque consideration: d'ailleurs, l'interprète russe Vladykin, qui était à Peking au moment de la réception du lord Macartney, d'autres personnes encore qui ont pu avoir de ce fait une connaissance toute particulière, s'accordent à rapporter des circonstances bien contraires au récit des Anglais. Le comte Golowkin, ambassadeur de Russie [1805–06], ayant voulu se prévaloir de l'exemption accordée au lord Macartney, on lui assura très-positivement que cette exemption n'avait jamais eu lieu. Enfin, indépendamment de tous ces témoignages, on aurait peine à concevoir le motif qui eût fait enfreindre ainsi, sans nécessité, le plus sacré des rites de la cour. L'histoire chinoise ne contribue pas peu à faire douter de cette possibilité.” *
Notably, Macartney's Journal, referred to in note two;
Ch'ing shih kao
(Peking, 1928; revised 3rd ed., Mukden, 1937). For a discussion of this work and its various editions see
Ch'ing shih-lu, published in 1937 by the Council of State Affairs of the Government of Man-choukuo under the title of Ta Ch'ing li-ch'ao shih-lu
in 4485 chüan (chapters), 1220 ts'e (volumes). The Shih-lu is an official collection of documents giving an annual chronological, almost day by day, record of the affairs of a dynasty. This one was compiled according to customary procedure to serve as the basic historical source for the Ch'ing dynasty and was of course used by the compilers of the Ch'ing shih kao. The published edition is a photolithographic printing of the Mukden mss. copy. See
See notes 23, 26 and 68 to follow.
MSS. Ministère des affaires étrangères, Mémoires et documents: Chine (1793–1855), vol. 17. The letter was from Grammont at Peking to Sēnor Agoté, Spanish chief at Canton, and was written in the winter of 1793–94. It will be referred to in more detail later. See note 103.
Ibid., pp. 149, 151–53.
Su-Ieng-o was Hoppo at Canton in 1793 and 1794.
[Gazetteer of the Kwangtung customs] (“Ch'ing Chia-ch'ing ju-i-nien Ying-shih lai p'ing-an” 
[Documents relating to the coming of the English embassy in the 21st year of Chia-ch'ing], in Wen-hsien ts'ung-pien
[Collectanea from the historical records office] (Peking: Palace Museum, 1930–37), vol. 11, p. 20b;
Ch'ing-tai wai-chiao shih-liao
(Peking: Palace Museum, 1932–33), vol. 5, p. 14. This publication contains documents from the archives of the Council of State covering the years 1796 to 1835.
See infra, material relating to notes 85–91.
Wen-hsien ts'ung-pien, Amherst documents, vol. 11, p. 37b. The document is undated but is entered between two dated August 30, 1816. It also appears in slightly abbreviated form in the Ch'ing shih-lu, Chia-ch'ing period, ch. 320, p. 4b, where it is dated August 30, 1816 (Chia-ch'ing 21:7.8). An English translation, made by Morrison from the official copy delivered to the embassy, is dated September 11th, and is found in Morse, Chronicles, vol. 3, pp. 299–302.
See next paragraph.
Wen-hsicn ts'ung-pien, Amherst documents, vol. 11, p. 30a. The key phrase is chiang-chiu-liao at the end of the second sentence. This rather colloquial and idiomatic phrase means “to make the best of anything,” “to put up with,” “to let pass,” “to overlook” and implies that one accommodates oneself to or makes concessions to the circumstances. Some might take this statement of the Emperor as conclusive proof that Macartney did not kotow. This can hardly be done because there were a number of usages that were relaxed in the case of the embassy. It went directly to Tientsin instead of to Canton, and over eighty persons made the trip to Peking instead of the customary twenty. The Emperor's statement may have reference to matters like these, although the context indicates that the ceremonial was the thing referred to.
For a similar imperial statement see ibid., p. 36a.
Die Russische gesandtschajt nach China im jahr 1805 (St. Petersburg and Leipzig: Ziemsenschen verlag, 1809), p. 45 ff. The well known sinologist Henri-Jules Klaproth, who accompanied the Golovkin embassy says, “Lord Macartney did not submit to the Chinese ceremonial, though such a report was circulated while he was at Peking.” See
Kwangtung t'ung-chih
edited by Juan Yuan 
(Canton, 1822), ch. 170, p. 42.
(Edition of 1852), ch. 53, p. 
(Hsiao Mei-sheng, Chi ying-chi-li ch'iu Ao shìh-mo
(No date or place), p. 1. MSS. in Cornell University library. There also is an undated printed version.
Wang Wen-t'ai, Hung-mao-fan Ying-chi-li k'ao-lüeh
(Published, 1841), p. 10.
Ch'ing shih kao: Pang-chiao chih, 
ch. 2, p. la-b.
The edict is reproduced and translated in
[Sacred edicts of the Ch'ien-lung Emperor] (Peking, 1879), ch. 276, pp. 20b-21a.See below notes 90–91.
Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b.
Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 118, p. 3.
Kuo-ch'ao jou-yüan chi, ch. 6, pp. 3–4.
Ch'ing shih kao: Pen-chi
, ch. 15, pp. 12b-13a.
Shih-ch'ü yü-chi
ch. 5, p. 56 as found in the Pi-lin lang-kuan ts'ung-shu
edited by Fang Kung-hui 
and printed in 1884. There also seems to be independent editions in 1888 and 1890. The publisher's preface to the 1888 edition (found at Columbia) says the work was never published before. It is also called the Hsi-ch'ao chi-cheng
See Fairbank and Teng, HJAS, 6 (June, 1941), 216.
The exact meaning of wu-tao is not clear. Its ordinary meaning is to dance about or gesticulate, but it also means to manipulate the arms and legs. It also refers to an ancient form of court ceremonial mentioned in the biography of Ssu-Ma Kuang in the Sung shih (Sung history). Kuei means to kneel, and in accordance with the Chinese manner this would be upon both knees. For our purpose the term carries a certain ambiguity unless the number of knees knelt upon is specified and unless we are sure of what motive the author had in using the phrase.
Ch'en K'ang-ch'i (born ca. 1838), Lang-ch'ien chi-wen
[Memoires of a retired gentleman]. First series (Preface dated 1880. Sao-yeh Shan-fang edition 
1910) ch. 5, p. 11. The statement is incompletely quoted by
[Account of the first British Ambassador's coming to China], 
The phrase pai-kuei might well be translated “to do obeisance kneeling,” but the longer rendering has been used to bring out the full flavor of the phrase.
Fu-fu ordinarily means “to prostrate or to render obeisance,” and so it has been rendered here as the intended meaning of the writer. In reference to Western customs, however, it was used in 1816 to mean “to raise the hat and bow the head” 
[See Ch'rng-ch'ao-hstlwen-hsient'ung-k'ao
(Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1936), ch. 334, p. 10,745. For a discussion of this book see
Kuan Shih-ming, Yun-shan-t'ang shih-chi
[Collected poems of the Yün-shan court]. Unfortunately it has been impossible to consult the original work, and so the extract has been copied exactly as given in Ch'en K'ang-ch'i, op. cit., ch. 5, p. 11 and
For information about Kuan see the forthcoming biographical dictionary, Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing period, edited by Arthur W. Hummel. The biographical data was supplied by Dr. Hummel.
Before examination one might think that a work like Liu Fu's Ch'ien-lung Ying-shih chin-chien chi
[Record of the English Ambassador's audience with the Ch'ien-lung emperor (First published in 1917; Shanghai: Chung-hua book company, 1930), would contain invaluable information. But it is a translation of Lord Macartney's Journal.
See appendix.
Ch'ing shih kao: Li-chih
ch. 10, p. 4a-b.
K'ang-hsi hui-tien, ch. 72 (Board of Rites, ch. 33), pp. 1–3b, section 12, as quoted in Fairbanlt and Teng, op. cit., p. 166. An Arab envoy was also received by the T'ang Emperor in 713 without kotowing. See
The accounts are by Macartney, the elder and younger Staunton, Hüttner, Dinwiddie, Barrow, Anderson and Holmes. See notes 2, 4, 11, 20 and 89.
See the biographies by Robbins and Barrow mentioned in note 2 and the Dictionary of national biography.
See the Dictionary of national biography and
“Ying-shih Ma-ka-erh-ni lai p'ing-an” in Chang-ku ts'ung-pien
[Records relating to the English ambassador Macartney in Collected historical documents] (Peking: Palace Museum, 1928–29), vol. 2, p. 12a-b; also Kao-tsung ch'un-huang-ti sheng-hsün, ch. 276, pp. 17–18 and 4–5, 6–8, 16.
Presumably 
MSS. India Office, China: miscellaneous documents, vol. 20, Macartney to Dundas, November 9, 1793. This document is Lord Macartney's original despatch (unpublished) to Henry Dundas reporting on the embassy. Hereafter it will be referred to as MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793. Duplicates and copies of it are to be found in volumes 92 and 93 of the China records in the India Office. See also
Kao-tsung ch'un-huang-ti sheng-hsün, ch. 276, p. 16;
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 5, Macartney documents, p. 25a.
See the document quoted below in connection with note 74;
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 5, Macartney documents, pp. 31a-b. This document is quoted at length because of its inherent interest and because it shows the origin of a legend, long current at Peking, that Macartney did not kotow because he could not bend his knees. See
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, p. 41a. That Cheng-jui and not the English misrepresented the situation is adequately borne out by later Chinese documents. See notes 81 and 82.
Ibid., p. 282; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793.
MSS. India Office, China: Macartney Embassy, vol. 92, pp. 209–10;
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol: 7, Macartney documents, pp. 53a-54a;
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, pp. 52b-53a.
Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, pp. 53a–54a.
Macartney's Journal, p. 299.
Ch'ing shih kao: Li-chih section, ch. 10, p. 4a-b. Mr. John Kullgren informs the writer that Doctor Yüan Tung-li, of the National Library of Peiping, informed him that the memorial presenting the matter to the Emperor explained that among the English kneeling on both knees was reserved for the worship of God; that the highest compliment which they could pay to earthly beings was to kneel on one knee as they did before their king, and that they were willing to perform the same ceremony before the Emperor as a mark of their great respect. This seems so reasonable and logical that it may well have convinced the Emperor.
Ibid., pp. 300–301; MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793;
Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b. See note 45.
Ibid., ch. 1434, pp. 8a–9b; Chang-ku ts'ung-pien, vol. 7, Macartney documents, p. 54a–b.
Ch'ing shih-lu, Ch'ien-lung period, ch. 1434, p. 11a–b.
MSS. Macartney to Dundas, Nov. 9, 1793;
Ibid., pp. 318–21;
See material relating to note 32 above.
MSS. Cornell, Macartney correspondence, no. 292, reproduced in T'oung pao, 31 (1934), 35. Another printed copy of the letter, varying in minor detail, is found in
MSS. Cornell, Macartney correspondence, no. 293, reproduced in T'oung pao, 31 (1934), 37–38. The only known version of this letter is in French translation.
Proudfoot, J. Dinwiddie, p. 52;
It should be noted that this conclusion is supported (or seems to be supported) by three recent Chinese writers. They accept the view of the English documents that Macartney did not kotow, although none of them have collected enough evidence to definitely settle the matter. These writers are Siao I-shan [Hsiao I-shan], Ch'ing-tai t'ung-shih
[General history of the Ch'ing period] (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1928), vol. 2, pp. 751–64;
[History of modern China] (For some account both of early Chinese and Persian ceremonials see
;For an excellent further discussion see
See the articles mentioned in notes 110 and 1.
The interpretation of i and jen here presented reflects the view of Professor J. J. L. Duyvendak as presented in various lectures upon Confucius at Columbia University in the spring of 1939. Jen represents the benevolence, compassion and goodness which the superior should show to the in ferior. I represents the obligations owed by right to the superior by the inferior, hence that which is right or righteousness. See also
See the document quoted in connection with note 74. The Chinese looked upon ambassadors as agents, not as representatives of their sovereign. See
This whole discussion has been kept in the realm of the theory of the suzerain-vassal relationship. Practically, the Chinese did realize that states like Russia, England and perhaps Japan were in a different category than kingdoms like Korea and Annam, at least so far as power was concerned. For that very reason it was desirable to keep them at a distance if possible through the ceremonial fiction of the suzerain-vassal relationship.
For facts about the embassies see the Appendix. Also consider
, and The writer agrees with Mr. Ridge's view that performance of the kotow did not in itself imply “suzerainty and subjection” (p. 372), but Mr. Ridge seems to ignore the fact that the sending of an embassy did imply, in the minds of the Chinese, submission to their cultural suzerainty. No such verbal gymnastics as those indulged in by Mr. Ridge can alter the fact that there was a fundamental cleavage between Chinese and Western conceptions as to the equality between states. This came to be symbolized by the kotow, and, in so far as the kotow symbolized this difference in view, the writer agrees with John Quincy Adams (and strongly disagrees with Mr. Ridge) to this extent, that the kotow was one important cause of the first war between China and England.Amherst in 1816 and the Russian Golovkin in 1806 maintained the same illogical position but insisted on avoiding the kotow altogether because Macartney had not performed it. Thereafter the Westerners became more logical and did not send any more ambassadors until they had com pelled the Chinese to recognize in writing their equality, and did not approach the person of the Emperor until he agreed to receive them with what they considered proper courtesy and respect.
Even in the 19th century well informed men like Sir George Thomas Staunton, Robert Morrison and Sir John Francis Davis strongly presented the view that the kotow was a degrading ceremony which was an all important act in the submission of one state to another. Their view was no doubt influenced by their personal conflicts with the Chinese officials at Canton over equality.
