IntroductionEurope and the Western world have long regarded China as something of a mystery: a self-isolated giant, shrouded in thousands of years of rich history that The West knew little about it for centuries and still tries to demystify it today. China, even in modern times, tends to be seen as hostile to Western ideology and diplomacy and, above all, as arrogant. Much of our understanding and perception of Euro-Chinese relations, perhaps most specifically regarding pre-modern China, derives from a crucial point in history: Lord Macartney's embassy and his mission to China in 1793 during the reign of the Emperor Qianlong. The Macartney Mission represented the first true example of large-scale interaction, nation to nation, sovereign to sovereign, between Chinese and Europeans. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThis is not to say that contact between China and Europe did not already exist. When Marco Polo arrived in the Far East in the 13th century, he discovered European artisans already working in the royal court of the Great Khan, and the 16th and 17th centuries saw the rise of Jesuit missions in China, particularly that of the Italian priest Matteo Ricci. However, as ocean trade between China and Europe began in the 16th century and increased throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as Europe became more industrialized, the terms of Chinese-European interaction changed dramatically. Missionaries, explorers, and artists were individuals or small groups, but international trade involved entire trading companies and governments – and thus diplomacy. As Macartney and his embassy ventured into China to negotiate diplomatic terms, both Britain and China entered truly unknown territory in their relations with each other, or, more generally, in relations between Europe and China. No previous European mission had reached this scale or come into such close contact with China on a political/economic level. From the British perspective, the mission failed to negotiate trade agreements as all requests were rejected by the Qianlong Emperor. Much has been said about what went wrong during the Macartney Mission and many have speculated about these points of failure. In most cases, the failure of the Macartney mission is attributed to cultural misunderstandings and the arrogance of the Chinese imperial court. Indeed, the Macartney Mission represents a major turning point in how the West will view China in the future. Voltaire once echoed the romantic, mid-18th century. European notions of China when he wrote in admiration of the Celestial Empire in his 1756 Essai sur les m'urs et l'esprit des Nations. Historian C. P. Fitzgerald summarizes Voltaire's vision of China: a magnificent spectacle: an empire far greater than any other Europe had ever known since the fall of Rome, governed by a central administration through officials appointed, removed, transferred or dismissed at the pleasure of the Throne, unhindered by feudal privileges or local powers. However, this admiration and wonder would turn to contempt as Fitzgerald writes that following the Macartney Mission, the Chinese Empire was then seen in Europe as weak, corrupt, poorly governed, plagued by rebellions, swept by famine, ignorant of science, indifferent . to progress, and is still pagan. What gave rise to this notion of Chinese arrogance, and why is it so fundamentally inaccurate? These are the questions I would like to answer in this Hausarbeit. Furthermore, there has been much speculation about cultural misunderstanding and ignorance on both sidesparts that would lead 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 both the English and Chinese were aware of each other's customs, but simply overlooked them for other reasons. As I have stated, I wish to dispel notions of Chinese arrogance and cultural misunderstanding, which have long been the simple explanation 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 ignorance and ritual. Furthermore, I would say that most of the speculation regarding the British failure and mistakes in the management of the Macarntey mission, especially the Kowtow failure which I will discuss later, are somewhat futile because I believe that the mission would never have been succeeded from one moment to the next. diplomatic point of view under any circumstances, given China's social order, Confucianism and its morality-centered mode of governance. First, I will talk about the British perspective and what led Britain to send Lord George Macartey to the court of the Qianlong Emperor seeking diplomatic negotiations. 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 broad set of trading rules and practices known as the Canton System that would govern Europe and the China. trade. In the early 18th century, Emperor Yongzheng established the Thirteen Hongs who had legal control over trade in southern China's busiest port city, Guangzhou (Guangzhou), but as demand for trade from Europeans grew (the trade was growing at about 4% per year during that period), the Qing dynasty became increasingly conservative, applying restrictive reforms to the cantonal system. In 1757, Emperor Qianlong reformed the Canton system to limit all European trade to the Canton port. This proved unfavorable for European nations, especially the English who felt limited by these very intricate and rigid trade agreements. In the mid-18th century, the British East India Company was accumulating a trade imbalance with China that was rapidly getting out of hand (largely due to Britain's insatiable appetite for tea, silk, and porcelain) and taxes imposed by the hong they were proving unbearable. At the time, European economies were rapidly expanding and the need for hard currency was constantly increasing, especially the need for silver and other precious metals to produce currency. This meant that there were fewer ingots available to trade with China, which in turn, further increased the cost of trade in Canton. Inspired by the economic notions of Adam Smith and the intrinsic good of open markets and barrier-free trade, Britain was convinced to free itself from the suffocating provisions of the cantonal system and open up greater trade with China. 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 made as early as the summer of 1792. The aim of Macartney's embassy in China was to receive an audience with the Qianlong Emperor where they would present their demands for negotiation . Of these demands, the most significant were: to reform or abolish the Canton system and open trade at multiple ports throughout China, including Ningpo, Chusan, and Tianjin; establish a permanent British ambassador to Beijing; and finally,to secure the grant of a small island off the coast of China where British merchants could operate in accordance with British law and practice the British Christian religion. In June 1793, Macartney is recorded in Chinese imperial correspondences as he approached the port city of Macau and upon arrival there was an immediate dispute between Macartney and the Macau hong. As established by the Canton System, no European should be allowed to land anywhere other than Canton or Macau and certainly would not be allowed to dictate whether they would receive and receive an audience with the emperor in Beijing or not. However, the embassy had brought with them many intricate and large gifts, such as elaborate clocks and an orrery developed by William Herschel and therefore they were granted special permission to personally travel with their gifts to deliver them to the emperor. By late August, the embassy had reached Beijing and was then escorted north, by land, to the emperor's summer palace at Jehol. On 14 September 1793, almost a year after the embassy embarked from England, Lord Macartney received an audience with the Qianlong Emperor, however, after three days of ceremonies and exchanges of gifts, Macartney and his embassy were dismissed from the Imperial Court and escorted, hastily, 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 hearing in Jehol. Then, on September 23, 1793, Emperor Qianlong of the Manchu-Qing Dynasty issued a royal edict addressed to King George III of Great Britain rejecting all demands and proposals made by the British. The edict constitutes one of the most significant Chinese primary sources ever to emerge and has been crucial to historical work and public thinking regarding the late Qing dynasty. However, I would argue that this is a highly, and often, misinterpreted edict. document. Examining the edict, as well as the Qianlong Emperor'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 in the 18th century. Great Britain, as well as many historians of the 20th century. they called Chinese arrogance and Qing Dynasty immobility. However, I will then attempt to discredit these claims of arrogance by examining Emperor Qianlong's decisions and rhetoric through a more nuanced consideration of the Chinese perspective. Reading the English translation of the manuscript of the first imperial edict, what is immediately striking is the tone of the rhetoric used by Emperor Qianlong. To a historian and English speaker JL Cranmer-Byng seems rather pompous and presumptuous and also notes that the original Chinese characters used in the edict have a slightly haughty and condescending sense, seeing the historical use of certain characters as used in imperial documents from in the Kingdom of Middle when superior officers addressed subordinate officers or anyone of lower status. Furthermore, Emperor Qianlong appears to belittle British diplomatic efforts by insisting that the embassy was only a tribute mission to demonstrate sincerity to him. In a poem written by the Qianlong Emperor in memory of the Embassy Macartney writes, In my kindness to distant men I make a generous return, wishing to preserve my good health and my power. Furthermore, as regards the extravagant gifts brought by the English and also as regards the British imports into China, wrote the Emperor, I attach no value to strange or ingenious objects and have no use for the manufactured goods of your country. In his poetry he conveys the same message: although their tribute is the order of the day. I don't appreciate itthe curiosity and vaunted ingenuity of their devices. Furthermore, the emperor writes that, out of his kindness, he grants European trade as a concession and that China does not have the slightest need of European trade and products: Our Celestial Empire possesses everything in prolific abundance and does not lack any produced within its borders. .Such passages have been interpreted by a particular camp of historians as evidence that China, or more specifically Qianlong and the Qing dynasty, were utterly arrogant and ignorant regarding foreign relations. Although the emperor clearly conveys the China-centered worldview and Chinese self-sufficiency, this has been interpreted by some as evidence of a truly ignorant rejection of the benefits of Western commercial principles. By characterizing the British gifts as strange and ingenious, the emperor appeared to forgo the fruits of the industrial revolution and the great technological progress of Europe and was therefore seen by some as evidence of the Qing dynasty's crippling intransigence and blind arrogance. Alain Peyrefitte in his work The Immobile Empire is representative of this particular camp of historians who gave disproportionate weight to the principles of free trade and Smithian economics in examining the imperial court of the Qianlong Emperor. Peyrefitte argues that the Qing dynasty's adherence to ritual and rejection of British trade negotiations exemplify how the cultural conceit and arrogance of the Chinese imperial court kept China immobile and weak, particularly in light of the subsequent Opium Wars. 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 of Chinese ritual and conservatism as the failure of the Macartney Mission, but rather believes that the Mission failed because both the Chinese and the English were equally more interested in rituals and the two cultures inevitably clashed. However, I find that both of these perspectives look at the Chinese position from a very superficial level and give too much weight to cultural difference and ritual. Where both Peyrefitte and Hevia fail is in their failure to consider the ration, practicality and strategy involved in the Qianlong Emperor's actions in the context of Macartney's embassy in 1793: the logic behind the façade of ritual . Therefore, we must examine Chinese arrogance in a different context: the context of the Chinese perspective. I believe we must first rethink the term "Chinese arrogance" according to two patterns of thinking: Chinese arrogance as a sign of strength and in response to blatant British arrogance, and also the misinterpretation of the values ​​of Confucianism as arrogance. Much is made of Chinese arrogance in 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 perspective, we can see how truly arrogant and uncouth the British were in their interaction with the Chinese authorities. Nothing represents this better than the infamous Kowtow issue. Kotow was a very important honor ritual in Confucian and Chinese culture in which one knelt before men of high authority and rank and, as a sign of honor, touched the floor with one's forehead several times. It wasn't simply a sign of respect. , but rather a form of maintaining social order in the hierarchy of Chinese society. It was feared that failure to carry out the action could cause major natural disasters, but from a more rational point of view, it could destabilize the hierarchical and Confucian social order under which it operated.