From Personal Network to Institution Building: The Lifanyuan, Gift Exchange and the Formalization of Manchu-Mongol Relations

Non-compliance with Rules of Behaviour as a Political Statement

When the subject of Mongol opposition to Manchu rule comes up, historians usually put their attention on cases of armed resistance. When looking at the 17^th century, the most prominent examples of Mongols denouncing their bond with the Manchus and resorting to force are the conflicts with the Sönid Mongols under their leader Tenggis in the years 1646-1648 and the military actions of the Čaqar Mongols, who in 1675 launched an attack on Mukden (Fang 1943/44b: 304–305). Archival material, however, proves that in the 17^th century members of the Mongol nobility also used non-violent methods of passive resistance. In the same way as conforming to the requirements of formalized behaviour was a way of clearly affirming one’s position within the hierarchical structures of the Qing state, non-compliance with the newly established rules of conduct was more than misbehaviour – it was a political statement.

From the Shunzhi period onwards, there was a stricter regulatory framework for festive dinners held at the court for Mongol dignitaries (Song forthcoming). As we learn from the recently published archival material, not to appear at the court was understood as a form of protest. In 1659 the Lifanyuan reported to the emperor that two prominent rulers of the Qorčin Mongols had declined his invitation to come to the capital. The manner in which they had rejected the imperial request was deemed to be greatly disrespectful, and the Lifanyuan summarized their insolent remarks with these words:²²
When the emperor said “I want to get along well with you like a close relative, come!”, the Joriktu Cin Wang²³ and the Darhan Baturu Giyūn Wang²⁴ of the Qor

in did not happily come. Instead, the Joriktu Cin Wang did not ask for an imperial order, but, on his initiative, said “Because of the illness of the imperial princess I will postpone my arrival.” The Darhan Baturu Giyūn Wang brought forward all sorts of things like “I caught a cold” and “Moreover, my wife suffers from diarrhoea.²⁵ Two [of your] grandchildren²⁶ have [already] died.” and acted contrary to the imperial order and what he handed in as a memorial was greatly disrespectful.

Both Qorčin princes, who had received an invitation of the emperor to appear at the court together with their wives, were married to imperial princesses.²⁷ As is well known, marital alliances were of great political significance and had been at the core of Manchu diplomacy towards the Mongols (Di Cosmo 2007; Jagchid 1986). Political relations were concluded and consolidated by strengthening family ties. Despite the fact that they were relatives by marriage, the two did not want to accept the invitation to the capital. The answer of the first, the Joriktu Cin Wang, was considered rude, because he simply declined the invitation and did not, as it would have been appropriate, ask for imperial permission not to appear. The case of the second, the Darhan Baturu Giyūn Wang, was different. His reply seemed to be evasive and he adopted a tone, which may have been considered too familiar in a correspondence with the emperor. Even though the emperor had alluded to the family ties between the two houses, to be too explicit about his and his wife’s health condition was possibly tantamount to transgressing the social boundaries, which separated the emperor from local Mongol power figures.

It is not clear, what prompted the two Qorčin noblemen to turn down the imperial request to come to the capital in this rather provocative manner. Five years earlier, in August 1654, both, the Joriktu Cin Wang and the Darhan Baturu Giyūn Wang had attended a banquet at the capital together with their wives and, in return, had received lavish gifts (Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010, vol. 1, 71/72). We cannot rule out the possibility that their dismissiveness was part of a strategy, which aimed at gaining more personal appreciation of their services to the dynasty. They may not have wanted to break with past policies of close cooperation but rather were negotiating for a better position and more privileges. This interpretation seems to be convincing at least in the case of the Darhan Baturu Giyūn Wang: Less than two months after the aforementioned memorial was made by the Lifanyuan, he was elevated from Giyūn Wang (prince of the second degree) to Cin Wang (prince of the first degree) (Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010: vol. 1, 222/223).

For the two Qorčin leaders, however, it was a risky game, and it is not likely that they were just trying to draw attention to themselves. The Lifanyuan officials were very much annoyed with their behaviour. They continued the memorial suggesting that – in return for their disrespectfulness – the two Qorčin princes should be brought to the capital and blamed there. The emperor, however, disapproved of this idea and requested the Lifanyuan to discuss the matter again with officials of the “Upper Three Banners”.²⁸ His answer to the memorial of the Lifanyuan goes as follows:²⁹
When I said “come” and „let us reconcile with the Joriktu Wang and the Baturu Wang like close relatives” they didn’t listen to my order and did not come. Obviously prevaricating is against the law and their excuses were greatly disrespectful. Your ministry should get together with the officials of the three banners, discuss the matter and make a memorial! Drop [the idea] of bringing the princes here!
Even though the emperor stressed his family ties with the Qor

in nobility, this could not conceal the obligatory character of his invitation. Non-compliance was a clear breach of the principles relevant in this kind of personal but also political relationship. By refusing to accept the invitation, the Qorčin sent out a signal and their failure to answer the letters of the emperor with adequate courtesy and affection was interpreted as hostile behaviour.

Even though we do not know the concrete reasons for the evasive answers of the two princes, their reaction can be comprehended within the historical context. Among the Mongol groups, which had joined the Manchu project by 1659, the Qorčin can be said to been the most influential confederation. The memorial bringing to light the differences their leaders had with the Shunzhi emperor may be regarded as one of the few documents revealing that – apart from open rebellion – there was dissatisfaction on the part of the Mongol nobility about their growing marginalization. Court publications³⁰ represent arrangements for audiences with the emperor as an accomplished fact, thus concealing that they were the result of a long process of debate. It was not a matter of course that Mongol nobles appeared at the court in regular intervals. The modalities of their visits were specified by the Lifanyuan in the Shunzhi period, in the years immediately preceding the memorial under discussion (Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan 2010: vol. 1, nos. 92, 105; Song forthcoming). For this reason, the Qorčin rejection of the imperial invitation was probably not coincidental, but rather a reaction to attempts of the court to establish a standardized procedure for visits to the court. Qorčin princes as the most influential among the Qing Mongol nobility may have thought it beneath their dignity to be summoned to Beijing and to be treated according to a protocol, which was more or less equally applied to all Mongol princes.

Conclusion

The affiliation of Mongols to the Qing court was rooted in a network of personal relations, which had been built up between the Manchu ruler and members of the Mongol nobility. Personal bonds, however, need to be reinforced and consolidated permanently. This task was taken over by the Lifanyuan. Its officials provided the court with the necessary expertise to deal with the complicated network of relationships. They were informed about the genealogy of each Mongol noble house, kept up regular correspondence, and, of course, were responsible for the staging of the nobilities’ visits to the court and the gift exchange, which it involved. Gift-exchange was an element of diplomatic activity Mongols were well acquainted with before the rise of the Manchus. By re-interpreting these practices and putting a new emphasis on the generosity and grace of the emperor, the Qing filled existing forms of interaction with a new meaning. A key trend in the representation of gift-exchange seems to be a re-evaluation of what was donated by the court, which implied that the Mongol nobility was placed under the obligation to requite (Atwood 2000).

With regard to the Manchu heritage, Pamela Crossley has drawn our attention to formalizing tendencies in the administrative, political, cultural and spiritual life of the Qing (1987: 779). She contends: “In its political aspects this meant the progressive bureaucratization, regulation, and depersonalization of the state in displacement of the personal, diffused authority that had once been vested by tradition in the clans and confederations” (761). As I would like to argue, a similar trend towards streamlining, standardizing and formalizing can be observed in respect of the interaction of the Qing court with the Mongol nobility. The network of personal relationships, which had developed during the time of Hong Taiji, was maintained by exchange of gifts and courtesies, regular correspondence and visits to the court. During Hong Taiji’s rule these contacts were by no means informal, but there were certain standards pertaining for example to the procedures upon the arrival and departure of a Mongol mission at the court, festive meals and the nature of mutual presents (Gruber 2006: 111-117). There was, however, still some room for flexibility and a range of variation in the handling of these personal relationships. With the Lifanyuan taking over responsibility and drafting rules concerning the frequency, composition and modalities of Mongol visits to the Manchu court, the framework became much more rigid. Likewise, rules for the form of official correspondence were issued, and, by grading all members of the Mongols nobility, each person was positioned according to his relation with the Qing imperial house. The Lifanyuan seems to epitomize the wish for formalized processes, which determined the political role of the Mongol elite within the state.
Exploring law and citizenship in the Russian empire, Jane Burbank pointed out: “The connections that bound elite servitors into the skein of rule and service were personal, but their ultimate reference was always to the state and its unmatchable ability to reward and punish” (2007: 93). Linking the Mongol nobility to the state, the Lifanyuan established rules, which more or less equally pertained to all noble houses regardless of their standing prior to their affiliation with the Qing. There is indication that this policy was also met with opposition and ceremonial instructions were not always put into practice as smoothly as might appear from the perusal of court publications. Participating in festive ceremonies at the capital was a way of confirming the bond between the emperor and the Mongol nobility (Heuschert-Laage 2011: 56/57), and, likewise, declining the invitation of the emperor by a provocative answer was a political statement and was interpreted as disobedience.
In this paper the establishment of Qing rule over the Mongols has been explained with the model of political patronage. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, the limitations of this practice as to efficiency became apparent to the Qing court. On top of the structures developed in the 17^th century, the Qing at various places in the Mongol territories placed imperial representatives, who were in direct contact with the court.³¹ Regardless of the fact that patronage relationships no longer provided the channels for information and implementation of imperial policies, their symbolic representation was retained until the end of the dynasty and, as Uradyn Bulag has shown, this heritage was turned to even after the fall of the Qing and served as a model for the political interaction with Inner Asian leaders (Bulag 2010:71). This can be seen in the larger context of ethnohistory and supports the assumption that images of past inter-ethnic cooperation are used by multi-ethnic states as a resource for social cohesion (Schorkowitz 2012: 45).
Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle/Saale (Germany) and is part of the project „Dealing with Nationalities in Eurasia. How Russian and Chinese Agencies Managed Ethnic Diversity“.

References

Arban doloduγar jaγun-u emün-e qaγas-tu qolboγdaqu mongγol üsüg-ün bičig debter / Shiqi shiji Menggu wen wenshu dang’an 十七世纪蒙古文文书档案 (1997), edited by Li Baowen, Tongliao: Nei Menggu shaonian ertong chubanshe.
Asch, Ronald G., Birgit Emich, Jens Ivo Engels (2011): “Einleitung”, in: Integration, Legitimation, Korruption. Politische Patronage in Früher Neuzeit und Moderne, edited by Ronald G. Asch et al., Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang, 7-30.
Atwood, Christopher P. (2000): “‘Worshipping Grace’: The Language of Loyalty in Qing Mongolia”, Late Imperial China 21:2, 86-139.
Atwood, Christopher P. (2004): Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, New York: Facts On File.
Bao, Dalizhabu 达力扎布 (2006): “Qing chu waifan Menggu chaogong zhidu chutan 清初外藩蒙古朝贡制度初探”, Meng Yuan shi ji minzu shi lunji (Festschrift of the Mongol-Yuan Period and Ethnohistory), edited by Shiyuan Hao et al., Beijing: shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe, 410-422.
Bawden, Charles (1968): The Modern History of Mongolia, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Brunnert, H.S. and V.V. Hagelstrom (1911): Present Day Political Organization of China, trans. A. Beltchenko and E.E. Moran, Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh.
Bulag, Uradyn E. (2010): Collaborative Nationalism. The Politics of Friendship on China’s Mongolian Frontier, Lanham et al.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bulag, Uradyn E. (2012): “Independence as Restoration: Chinese and Mongolian Declarations of Independence and the 1911 Revolutions”, The Asia-Pacific Journal 10:52(3).
Burbank, Jane (2007): “The Rights of Difference. Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire”, in: Imperial Formations, edited by Ann Laura Stoler et al., Santa Fe, NM: School for Advanced Research Press, 77-111.
Caillé, Alain (2010): “Gift”, in: The Human Economy. A Citizen’s Guide, edited by Keith Hart et al., Cambridge et al.: Polity 2010, 180-186.
Carrier, James (1991): “Gifts, Commodities, and Social Relations: A Maussian View of Exchange”, Sociological Forum 6:1, 119-136.
Chia, Ning (1993): “The Li-fan Yuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in the Early Qing (1644–1795)”, Late Imperial China 14:1, 60–92.
Chia, Ning (2012): “Lifanyuan and the Management of Population Diversity in Early Qing (1636-1795)”, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Paper No. 139, Halle/Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.
Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1987): “Manzhou yuanliu kao and the Formalization of the Manchu Heritage”, The Journal of Asian Studies 46:4, 761-790.
Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999): A Translucent Mirror. Hitory and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Čing ulus-un üy-e-yin mongγol qosiγu čiγulγan (1984), edited by Namsarai, Tongliao: Öbör mongγol-un baγačud keüked-ün keblel-ün qoriy-a.
Di Cosmo, Nicola (2003): “Kirghiz Nomads on the Qing Frontier: Tribute, Trade, or Gift Exchange?”, in: Political Frontiers, Ethnic Boundaries and Human Geographies in Chinese History, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo et al., London: Routledge Curzon, 351-372.
Di Cosmo, Nicola (2006): “Competing Strategies of Great Khan Legitimacy in the Context of the Chaqar-Manchu Wars (c. 1620–1634)”, in: Imperial Statecraft: political forms and techniques of governance in Inner Asia, sixth – twentieth centuries, edited by David Sneath, Bellingham: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University, 245–263.
Di Cosmo, Nicola (2007): “Marital Politics on the Manchu-Mongol Frontier in the Early Seventeenth Century”, in: The Chinese State at the Borders, edited by Diana Lary, Vancouver: UBC Press, 57-73.
Di Cosmo, Nicola (2012): “From Alliance to Tutelage: A Historical Analysis of Manchu-Mongol Relations before the Qing Conquest”, Frontiers of History in China 7:2, 175-197.
Di Cosmo, Nicola and Dalizhabu Bao (2003): Manchu-Mongol Relations on the Eve of the Qing Conquest: a documentary history, Leiden: Brill.
Doerfer, Gerhard (1963a): Der Numerus im Mandschu, Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Doerfer, Gerhard (1963b): Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen unter Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit. vol. 1: Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Elliott, Mark C. (2001): The Manchu Way. The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Elliott, Mark C. (2011): “National Minds and Imperial Frontiers: Inner Asia and China in the new century”, in: The People’s Republic of China at 60. An international assessment, edited by William Kirby, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 401–411.
Elverskog, Johan (2006): Our Great Qing. The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China, Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Emich, Birgit, Nicole Reinhardt, Hillard von Thiessen and Christian Wieland(2005): “Stand und Perspektiven der Patronageforschung”, Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 32, 233-265.
Fang, Chao-ying (1943/44a): “Dodo”, in: Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912), edited by Arthur W. Hummel. 2 vols., Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 215, (Reprint 1991, Taipei: SMC Publishing).
Fang, Chao-ying (1943/44b): “Hsiao-tuan Wen Huang-hou”, in: Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912), edited by Arthur W. Hummel. 2 vols., Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 304–305, (Reprint 1991, Taipei: SMC Publishing).
Farquhar, David M. (1978): “Emperor as Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch’ing Empire”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38, 5-34.
Fournier, Marcel (2006): “Marcel Mauss oder die Gabe seiner selbst”, in: Gift – Marcel Mauss‘ Kulturtheorie der Gabe, edited by Stephan Moebius et al., Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 21-56.
Gruber, Britta-Maria (2006): Zur Entwicklung der Herrschaft im Aisin-Staat 1616-1636, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hauer, Erich (1926): Huang-Ts’ing K’ai-kuo Fang-lüeh. Die Gründung des Mandschurischen Kaiserreiches, Berlin, Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co..
Heuschert, Dorothea (1998): “Legal Pluralism in the Qing Empire: Manchu legislation for the Mongols”, The International History Review 20:2, 310–324.
Heuschert-Laage, Dorothea (2011): „Defining a Hierarchy. Formal Requirements for Manchu-Mongolian Correspondence Issued in 1636”, Questiones Mongolorum Disputatae 7, 48-58.
Heuschert-Laage, Dorothea (2012): „State Authority Contested along Jurisdictional Boundaries. Qing Legal Policy towards the Mongols in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries”, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Paper No. 138, Halle/Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, (23 pages).
Hevia, James L. (1995): Cherishing Men from Afar. Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793, Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Jagchid, Sechin (1986): “Mongolian-Manchu Intermarriage in the Ch’ing Period”, Zentralasiatische Studien 19, 68-87.
Jiu Manzhou Dang舊滿洲檔(1969), edited by Chen Jiexian 陳捷先, 10 vols., Taipei: National Palace Museum.
Kamimura, Akira (2005): “A Preliminary Analysis of Old Mongolian Manuscript Maps: Towards an Understanding of the Mongol’ Perception of the Landscape”, in: Landscapes Reflected in Old Mongolian Maps, edited by Futaki Hiroshi and Kamimura Akira, Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, 1-26.
Kettering, Sharon (1988): “Gift-Giving and Patronage in Early Modern France”, French History 2:2, 131-151. (Reprint in Patronage in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France).
Kettering, Sharon (1992): „Patronage in Early Modern France“, French Historical Studies 17,4, 839-862. (Reprint in Patronage in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France).
Kettering, Sharon (2002): Patronage in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France, Aldershot et al.: Ashgate/Variorum.
Köhle, Natalie (2008): “Why Did the Kangxi Emperor Go to Wutai Shan?: Patronage, Pilgrimage, and the Place of Tibetan Buddhism at the Early Qing Court”, Late Imperial China 29:1, 73-119.
Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina (2005): “Zwischen Činggis Qan und Vajrapani. Religiöse Identität und Geschichtsschreibung bei den Mongolen“, in: Religionskonflikte – Religiöse Identität, (Mitteilungen für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte, 17), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 199-216.
Komter, Aafke E. (1996): The Gift. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Komter, Aafke E. (2005): Social Solidarity and the Gift, Cambridge et al.: Cambridge University Press.
Krausman Ben-Amos, Ilana (2008): The Culture of Giving. Informal Support and Gift-Exchange in Early Modern England, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mauss, Marcel (2002): The Gift. The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies, London, New York: Routledge.
Millward, James A. (2004): “Qing Inner Asian Empire and the Return of the Torghuts”, in: New Qing Imperial History. The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde, edited by James A. Millward et al., London, New York: Routledge, 91-105.
Mongγol dangse ebkemel-ün emkidkel. Full title: Čing ulus-un dotoγadu narin bičig-ün yamun-u Mongγol dangse ebkemel-ün emkidkel / Qing nei mishuyuan mengguwen dang‘an huibian 清内秘书院蒙古文档案汇编 (2003), edited by Čimeddorǰi et al., 7 vols. Hohhot: Neimenggu renmin chubanshe.
Newbury, Colin (2003): Patrons, Clients, and Empire. Chieftaincy and Over-rule in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Oyunjargal, Ochiryn (2011): Manj Chin ulsaas Mongolchuudyg zahirsan bodlogo (oiraduudyn jisheen deer), Ulaanbaatar: Arvin sudar.
Oyunbilig, Borǰigidai (1999): Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte des Berichts über den persönlichen Feldzug des Kangxi Kaisers gegen Galdan (1696-1697), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Perdue, Peter C. (2005): China Marches West. The Qing conquest of Central Eurasia, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Perdue, Peter C. (2009a): “China and Other Colonial Empires”, The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, 16:1-2, 85-103.
Perdue, Peter C. (2009): „Empire and Nation in Comparative Perspective: Frontier Administration in Eighteenth-Century China“, in: Shared Histories of Modernity. China, India and the Ottoman Empire, edited by Huri Islamoğlu et al., London et al.: Routledge, 21-45.
Qianlong chao neifu chaoben 乾隆朝内府抄本<理藩院则例> (2006), edited by Labapingcuo 拉巴平措, Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe.
Qing chao qianqi Lifanyuan man meng wen tiben清朝前期理藩院满蒙文题本/ Dayičing gürün-ü ekin üy-e-yin γadaγadu mongγol-un törö-yi jasaqu yabudal-un yamun-u man