IntroductionEurope and the Western world have long viewed China as a mystery: an isolated giant, surrounded by thousands of years of rich history that West has lived for centuries. knew little about it and still tries to demystify it today. China, even in modern times, tends to be seen as hostile to Western ideology and diplomacy, and especially as arrogant. Much of our understanding and perception of Euro-Chinese relations, perhaps especially of pre-modern China, derives from a pivotal moment in history: Lord Macartney's embassy and mission to China in 1793, under the rule of the Middle Kingdom. Emperor Qianlong. The Macartney mission represented the first true example of large-scale, nation-to-nation and sovereign-to-sovereign interaction between Chinese and Europeans. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayThis is not to say that contact did not already exist between China and Europe. When Marco Polo arrived in the Far East in the 13th century, he discovered European artisans already working at the royal court of the Great Khan and the 16th and 17th centuries saw the rise of Jesuit missions in China, notably that of the Italian priest. Matteo Ricci. However, as ocean trade between China and Europe began in the 16th century and intensified throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as Europe industrialized, the terms of Sino-European interaction would change radically. Missionaries, explorers, and artists were individuals or small groups, but international trade involved trading companies and entire governments—and thus diplomacy. As Macartney and his embassy ventured into China to negotiate diplomatic terms, Britain and China were entering truly uncharted territory in their relations with each other, or more generally, in relations between Europe and China. No previous European mission had reached such scale or established such close contacts with China on a political and economic level. From the British perspective, the mission failed to negotiate trade deals, with all demands rejected by the Qianlong Emperor. Much has been said about what went wrong in the Macartney mission and many have speculated about these points of failure. Most often, the failure of the Macartney mission is blamed on cultural misunderstanding and the arrogance of the Chinese imperial court. The Macartney mission actually represents a major turning point in the way the West views China's future. Voltaire echoed the romantic romanticism of the mid-18th century. European notions about China when he wrote with admiration for the Celestial Empire in his Essay on the Morals and Spirit of Nations of 1756. The historian CP Fitzgerald summarizes Voltaire's vision of China: A magnificent spectacle : an empire much bigger than any Europe. known since the fall of Rome, governed by a central administration by officers appointed, dismissed, transferred or dismissed at the pleasure of the throne, unhindered by feudal privileges or local powers. However, this admiration and wonder would turn into contempt since Fitzgerald writes that following the Macartney mission, the Chinese Empire was then considered in Europe as weak, corrupt, poorly governed, prey to rebellions, swept away by the famine, ignorant of science, indifferent. to progress, and always pagan. What gave rise to this notion of Chinese arrogance and why is it so fundamentallyinaccurate? These are questions that I would like to answer in this Hausarbeit. Additionally, there has been much speculation that cultural misunderstanding and ignorance on both sides led to the failure of the Macartney mission. I would like to point out through Chinese primary sources that this is simply not true and that the British and Chinese were both aware of each other's customs, but simply neglected them for other reasons. As I have said, I wish to emphasize dispelling notions of Chinese arrogance and cultural misunderstanding, which have for so long been the simple explanations for the failure of the Macarntey mission. Rather, I would argue that the interaction between the British and Chinese imperial courts was much more about strategy and conscious, logical decisions than about ignorance and ritual. Furthermore, I would argue that much of the speculation regarding British failure and errors in their handling of the Macarntey mission, notably the failure of Bow which I will discuss later, is in a sense futile because I believe that the mission would never have succeeded from a simple point of view. diplomatic point of view whatever the circumstances, taking into account the Chinese social order, Confucianism and its mode of governance centered on morality. In response to Europeans' desire to trade with China in the 17th and 18th centuries, the ruling Qing dynasty developed, over the course of two centuries, a comprehensive set of regulations and trade practices known as the canton system that would govern trade between Europe and China. In the early 18th century, Emperor Yongzheng established the Thirteen Hongs which had legal control over trade in southern China's busiest port city, Canton (Guangzhou), but as demand for trade grew As Europeans increased (trade was growing at roughly the rate of 4% per year at this time), the Qing dynasty became increasingly conservative, implementing restrictive reforms to the canton system. In 1757, the Qianlong Emperor reformed the Canton system to confine all European trade to the port of Canton. This proved unfavorable to European nations, particularly the British who felt constrained by these very complex and strict trade agreements. By the mid-18th century, the British East India Trading Company was accumulating a trade imbalance with China that was growing rapidly and uncontrollably (mainly due to Britain's insatiable appetite for tea, silk and porcelain) and the taxes imposed by the Hongs proved unbearable. At this time, European economies were growing rapidly and the need for hard currency was constantly increasing, particularly the need for silver and other precious metals to make money. This meant that there were fewer bullion available for trade with China, which, in turn, further increased the cost of trade in Canton. Inspired by the economic notions of Adam Smith and the inherent good of open markets and free trade, Britain was convinced that it would free itself from the stifling stipulations of the Canton system and open up its trade with China. Under the leadership of the East India Trading Company and Prime Minister William Pitt, the British government established an embassy to be headed by the English statesman and diplomat George, Earl of Macartney. Preparations for the embassy's arrival in China were underway as early as the summer of 1792. The purpose of Macartney's embassy to China was to receive an audience with the Qianlong Emperor where they would present their requests for negotiation. Among these requests, the mostImportant were: reforming or abolishing the canton system and opening trade in several ports across China, including Ningpo, Chusan, and Tientsin; establish a permanent British ambassador in Beijing; and finally, to secure the grant of a small island off the coast of China where British merchants could operate under British law and practice the British Christian religion. In June 1793, Macartney was commemorated in Chinese imperial correspondence as he approached the port city. of Macau and upon his arrival, an immediate dispute arose between Macartney and the Macau hong. As the canton system stipulated, no European should be allowed to land anywhere other than Canton or Macau and they were certainly not allowed to dictate whether they would receive and hear the message from the emperor in Beijing or not. However, the embassy had brought with them many complex and large gifts, such as elaborate clocks and a planetarium developed by William Herschel, and so obtained special permission allowing them to personally travel with their gifts to deliver them to the emperor. By the end of August the embassy had reached Beijing and was then escorted north, by land, to the emperor's summer palace at Jehol. On September 14, 1793, almost a year after the English embassy embarked, Lord Macartney received an audience with the Qianlong. However, after three days of ceremonies and gift exchanges, Emperor Macartney and his embassy were dismissed from the imperial court and hastily escorted to their ships and out of China. According to Macartney's account of events, not a single issue of diplomacy or negotiation was discussed during his audience in Jehol. Then, on September 23, 1793, Emperor Qianlong of the Manchu-Qing dynasty issued a royal edict to King George III of Great Britain rejecting all demands and proposals presented by the British. The edict is one of the most significant Chinese primary sources ever published and has been crucial to historical work and public thought regarding the late Qing dynasty. However, I would say that it is a very, and often misinterpreted text. document. In examining the edict, along with Emperor Qianlong's second edict to King George III and a personal poem written by the emperor himself, I will first highlight what many of Lord Macartney's contemporaries wrote in the 18th century. Great Britain, as well as many historians of the 20th century. called out the Chinese arrogance and immobility of the Qing dynasty. However, I will then attempt to discredit these allegations of arrogance by examining Emperor Qianlong's decisions and rhetoric through a more nuanced consideration of the Chinese perspective. When reading the English translation of the manuscript of the First Imperial Edict, what is immediately striking is the tone of rhetoric used by the Qianlong Emperor. This seems rather pompous and presumptuous to an English speaker and historian. JL Cranmer-Byng even notes that the original Chinese characters used in the edict have a slightly haughty and condescending meaning, seeing the historical usage of certain characters as being used in imperial documents of the Middle Kingdom when senior officers s were addressed to junior officers or anyone of lower status. Furthermore, the Qianlong Emperor appeared to downplay British diplomatic efforts by insisting that the embassy was only a tribute mission intended to show his sincerity. In a poem written by Emperor Qianlong in memory of Macartney's embassy, ​​he writes that, in my kindness to men from far away, I return a generous return, wanting to preserve my good health and power. Furthermore, in thisregarding extravagant gifts brought by the British and also regarding British imports to China, the emperor wrote: "I place no value on strange or ingenious objects, and I have no use for the manufactures of your country . In his poem, he conveys the same message: even if their tribute is banal. I don't appreciate the curiosities and vaunted ingenuity of their devices. Furthermore, the emperor writes that he allows European trade as a concession out of kindness and that China does not have the slightest need for European trade and products: Our Celestial Empire possesses all things in abundance and does not lack no products within its borders. Such passages have been seen by a particular camp of historians as evidence that China, or more specifically Qianlong and the Qing dynasty, was utterly arrogant and ignorant in matters of foreign relations. Although the emperor clearly articulated the China-centered worldview and Chinese self-sufficiency, some saw this as evidence of a truly ignorant rejection of the benefits of Western business principles. By characterizing the British gifts as strange and ingenious, the emperor appeared to forgo the fruits of the industrial revolution and Europe's great technological advances and was therefore seen by some as evidence of crippling intransigence and l blind arrogance of the Qing dynasty. Alain Peyrefitte, in his work The Immobile Empire, is representative of that particular camp of historians who have placed disproportionate importance on the principles of free trade and Smithian economics when examining the emperor's imperial court Qianlong. Peyrefitte argues that the accession of the Qing dynasty ritual and rejection of British trade negotiations illustrate how the cultural vanity and arrogance of the Chinese imperial court kept China immobile and weak, particularly in light of the Chinese wars. 'later opium. Historian James L. Hevia, in his work Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793, disagrees with Peyrefitte's notion that Chinese ritual and conservatism are failure of the Macartney mission, but he instead believes that the mission failed because both the Chinese and the British were also more concerned with rituals and the two cultures inevitably clashed. However, I find that both perspectives view the Chinese position from a very superficial level and place far too much emphasis on cultural differences and rituals. Where Peyrefitte and Hevia fail is in their failure to consider the rationale, practicality and strategy involved in Emperor Qianlong's actions in the context of the Macartney embassy in 1793: the logic behind behind the facade of ritual. Therefore, we must examine Chinese arrogance in a different context – the context of the Chinese perspective. I believe we first need to rethink the term "Chinese arrogance" within two frameworks of thought: Chinese arrogance as a sign of strength and as a response to blatant British arrogance. , and also the misinterpretation of Confucianism values ​​as arrogance. Much is made of Chinese arrogance during the Macartney mission of 1793, but one must also consider the interpretation of British behavior and actions during the mission from the Chinese perspective. Considering the Chinese point of view, we can see how arrogant and rude the British were in their interactions with the Chinese authorities. Nothing represents this better than the infamous Kowtow problem. Kotow was a very important honor ritual in Chinese Confucian culture in.