청(淸) 건륭제(乾隆帝)의 황위(皇位) 계승자 결정과 훈정(訓政)

宋美玲 ( Song Mi-ryung ) 명청사학회 2020 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.53

Based on how the Emperor Qianlong's succession was determined and how he operated politics after he declared his retirement, the study aims to clarify how Qing Dynasty's succession of succession was transformed. Furthermore, I would like to understand what kind of status the Emperor Qianlong had as the Emperor after the retirement. The Emperor Qianlong was the first emperor to take the throne according to the system created by the Emperor Yongzheng. However, he felt uncomfortable with the method, and the way he pursued was different from the Emperor Yongzheng’s. The Emperor Qianlong made a statement that he would transfer power after revealing who the heir was. The Emperor Qianlong used the successor decision to strengthen the emperor's power, which led to the Regent. When the Emperor Qianlong stepped down from the throne, he distinguished his role from his successor, and made regulations on it. However, the Emperor Qianlong was possessed and exercised more power than the emperor as the supreme abdicated emperor. Although the Emperor Qianlong did not plan this situation in 1778 or 1795, but it resulted in an extension of his reign. The succession of the Qing Dynasty changed from the agreement of the various Manchu nobles to the way the emperor named it. the Emperor Qianlong used a link between deciding a successor in secret and engaging in politics after abdication. The reason he didn't disclose his successor is partly to prevent bureaucrats from intervening in the issue and exerting influence. The Emperor Qianlong was more actively involved in the process of deciding heirs than any emperor of the Qing Dynasty. This was intended to intercede to the point where other emperors could not have any influence.

‘유가 군주’ 건륭제乾隆帝가 조선에 보낸 선물의 성격 -정조正祖연간을 중심으로-

유재빈 ( Yoo Jaebin ) 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2024 인문과학연구 Vol.38 No.-

In the late 18th century, the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing Dynasty bestowed upon Joseon an array of royal writings, books, high-end crafts, and stationery items. These articles deviated from the conventional offerings associated with traditional tributes. The bestowal by the Qianlong Emperor comprised exquisite court craftsmanship, housed within the emperor's study, featuring his distinctive handwriting and personal preferences. Initially, Qianlong Emperor's missives to Joseon adhered to the established practice of providing letters to subject countries for signboards or flags, a tradition dating back to the Kangxi era. However, a discernible shift in this practice occurred in the 1780s, as subsequent writings exhibited a diminishing emphasis on the hierarchical power structure governing subject nations. Post- 1780, Qianlong's poems increasingly reflected his pride, aligning with a period of political and cultural prosperity. The stationery items dispatched by the Qianlong Emperor to Joseon transcended mere decorative elements; rather, they were the outcome of the Emperor's cultivated connoisseurship over an extended period. Carefully chosen from Emperor Qianlong’s extensive collection of ancient jade and bronze artifacts, these presents held substantial cultural and historical significance. The alteration in the nature of gifts presented by the Qianlong Emperor to King Jeongjo can be attributed to two factors: the Emperor's motivations and Joseon's reactions. In the latter part of the year, Qianlong Emperor deepened his appreciation for calligraphy and painting at a library, coinciding with his efforts to consolidate a 'Chinese' identity through generous diplomatic policies towards neighboring nations during his later reign. The royal writings and opulent stationery thus emerged as symbols, delineating the persona of a Confucian monarch governing China. Simultaneously, Jeongjo's proactive response played a pivotal role in sustaining the continuity of special diplomatic gifts from the Qianlong Emperor. The content of the gifts, encompassing books and stationery products, engendered a consensus between the two monarchs who both claimed the mantle of ‘academic kings’.

淸 중기 總理事務王大臣 체제와 정국운영

宋美玲(Song, Mi-ryung) 동양사학회 2013 東洋史學硏究 Vol.124 No.-

In the entire history of the Qing Empire, the Yongzheng and the Qianlong Emperors organized the Interim Council. The Councils were set up to endure twenty-seven months, which means a mourning period. Generally, many researchers noted that the council assisted the Emperor to handle administrative things in a mourning period. But, the Yongzheng and the Qianlong emperors began work immediately after the death of their fathers, that the organization did not have a lot of rights. Nevertheless, the emperors had persisted the Council during twenty-seven months. The Yongzheng and the Qianlong emperors had a special purpose, it was constructed. First, the Yongzheng emperor tried to eliminate political opponent in a mourning period. At that time, as justification for it, the Yongzheng emperor need the Kangxi emperor’s the posthumous edict and twenty-seven months. In the early Yongzheng period, the biggest political challenger was Y?nsy who was the eighth prince. Immediately after succeeding to the throne, the Yongzheng emperor appointed Y?nsy as a member of the Interim Council. It was to check him by the emperor. The second, the Qianlong emperor attempted to reform the Yongzheng emperor’s politics. Because of this, the Qianlong emperor need the Yongzheng emperor’s the posthumous edict and twenty-seven months. Besides, he used the Council member’s political network. Usually, when the Emperor is changed, that time politically dangerous, there may be many variables. The Yongzheng and the Qianlong emperors hoped soft landing in the first years of their reign. For this purpose, they each organized the Interim Council.

乾隆帝의 ‘景觀經營’에 대한 고찰

권석환 한국중국산문학회 2022 중국산문연구집간 Vol.13 No.-

The purpose of this paper was to understand how Emperor Qianlong perceived the landscape. The imperial Qianlong tour created numerous landscapes and gave meaning. The perception of such a landscape was sufficient to change the conquistador image of Qianlong. Therefore, the attitude toward the landscape of Emperor Qianlong was called 'Landscape Management'. Emperor Qianlong changed the characteristics of the eight scenic spots. ‘Eight Scenic Views of the landscape’, which contained the unworldly view of the literary godfathers of the Song Dynasty, and ‘Eight Scenic Views of the landscape’, which was an ideology for national domination after the Jin Dynasty, changed during the emperor Qianlong. Eight Scenic Views of the Beauty Spot means that a landscape forms a beauty spot. This is because the geographical category of the landscape is narrowed and the number of sceneries is expanded to highlight the characteristics of each landscape, while strengthening the placeness and adding consolation and comfort functions. This strengthened the psychological effect by making the distance between the landscape and the viewer close. Through historical evidence of the existing landscape, poetry and paintings, the emperor Qianlong reconstructed the landscape, and built monuments and buildings in each landscape to take coordinates and promote the localization of the landscape. The emperor Qianlong pursued a "small landscape" nearby. The small landscape was thought to be sufficient to resemble the great universe. The inclusion of "the world" in the small landscape of the emperor Qianlong is in line with the strategy of "seeing the big through the small" as a national ruler. This political strategy is a governing logic and concept that runs from the "house" to the "state" of Confucianism, and it was believed that the individual's capabilities could be in charge of a huge "world." In addition, the idea that the "beautiful scenery" in the small mind of humans is endless and infinite out of the world is due to the influence of Buddhist logic. In conclusion, it can be said that the emperor Qianlong contributed to the redefinition and expansion of China's landscape culture.

淸 乾隆 前·中期 朝鮮 使臣의 황제 朝見 양상과 그 배경

한승현 한국중국학회 2025 중국학보 Vol.112 No.-

건륭제는 1780년 칠순을 맞아 조선 사신을 열하로 초청하여 우대해 주었고, 이후 1782년부터는 북경의 외번연에도 조선 사신을 참여시키는 등 조청 관계를 격상시켰다. 그러나 이러한 우호적 변화는 건륭 전·중기의 조선 사신 접대와는 큰 대조를 이룬다. 특히 영조 연간 조선 사신은 주로 원단 조하나 드물게 열리는 원단연 행사에서만 황제를 접견할 수 있었으며, 별사의 경우는 비록 종친이라 하더라도 건륭제가 소견을 정지했기에 황제를 알현하기 힘들었다. 이는 자주 소견이 있었던 옹정제 시기와도 뚜렷이 대비된다. 건륭제는 즉위 후 조선만이 아니라 여러 조공국 사신에 대한 소견을 점차 중단하였고, 사신들은 원단 조하나 지영, 상조 등 청조의 국내 행사에 참여하는 방식으로 황제를 알현했다. 이는 당시 건륭제가 서북 변경 지역, 특히 서몽골 및 중앙아시아와의 관계 안정에 더 집중하고 있었기 때문으로, 조선 사신을 비롯한 조공국 사신에 대한 상대적 소홀은 외교 전략의 우선 순위에 따른 것이었다고 할 수 있다. 조선이 심양에 파견한 문안사에 대한 건륭제의 각별한 대우는 이 시기 조·청 사이의 우호 관계가 북경에서보다는 주로 심양에서 강화되고 있었음을 시사한다. 1770년대 이후 건륭제는 다시 조공국 사신과의 접촉을 확대했고, 정조 즉위 이후 조선 사신이 지영 행사에 참여하게 되면서 황제 알현의 기회도 증가하였다. 이는 정조의 적극적인 대청 사대와 건륭제의 대 조공국 관계 강화 의지가 맞물려 나타난 결과로 평가할 수 있다. 이 과정에서 비 종친 별사도 건륭제를 알현하게 되었는데 이는 청조의 조선 종친 사신 우대 원칙이 심양에서와 마찬가지로 북경에서도 점차 형해화되어 간 것을 보여준다. In 1780, to commemorate his seventieth birthday, Emperor Qianlong invited Joseon envoys to Rehe and received them with exceptional honor. Two years later, in 1782, he further permitted their participation in the Outer Vassal Banquet held in Beijing, thereby enhancing the diplomatic ties between Qing and Joseon. However, such cordial treatment marked a sharp departure from the reception Joseon envoys had experienced during the earlier and middle years of Qianlong’s reign. Under King Yeongjo, Joseon envoys were typically allowed to meet the emperor only during the New Year’s Day audience and, on rare occasions, during the accompanying banquet. Even special envoys (byeolsa 別使), including those of royal lineage, found it difficult to gain an audience with the emperor due to Qianlong’s suspension of formal imperial summons (sogyeon 召見)—a practice that stood in stark contrast to the more frequent audiences held during the reign of Emperor Yongzheng. Following his accession, Qianlong gradually curtailed imperial summons not only for Joseon envoys but also for those from other tributary states. Instead, these envoys were permitted to meet the emperor by participating in domestic Qing rituals such as the New Year’s Day ceremonies, Zhiying (a ritual of receiving the emperor), or regular court audiences. This shift reflected Qianlong’s strategic focus on consolidating stability along Qing’s northwestern frontiers, particularly in managing relations with the Western Mongols and Central Asian polities. The relative neglect of Joseon and other tributary envoys during this time thus stemmed from diplomatic priorities rather than personal indifference. Notably, the preferential treatment accorded to Munansa envoys dispatched to Shenyang during Qianlong’s eastern tours suggests that Qing–Joseon relations in this period were more actively cultivated in Shenyang than in Beijing. Beginning in the 1770s, Qianlong began to expand his interactions with tributary envoys. After King Jeongjo's accession, Joseon envoys increasingly participated in Zhiying ceremonies, thereby gaining greater access to the emperor. This development can be interpreted as the convergence of Jeongjo’s proactive policy of serving the Qing and Qianlong’s efforts to strengthen ties with tributary states. During this period, even non-royal special envoys from Joseon were granted audiences with the emperor- a significant shift that signaled the gradual dissolution of Qing’s earlier policy of privileging only royal-lineage envoys, not only in Shenyang but also in Beijing.

康雍乾시대 ‘大一統’ 정책과 시각 이미지

정석범(Jung Sukbum) 한국미술사교육학회 2009 美術史學 Vol.23 No.-

대일통 사상은 한대에 대제국을 효율적으로 통치하기 위해 대두되었는데 황제 중심의 정치적 통일과 공자의 유학으로 사상을 통일하는 것을 말한다. 대일통 사상은 분열기에는 그 자취를 감추었지만 통일기에는 어김없이 등장하여 중국을 정치적, 문화적으로 결속하는 중요한 이념적 수단이 되었다. 초기에는 華夏 중심의 배타적인 종족적 화이론이었지만 한인 지배영역의 확대와 함께 변방의 四夷를 끌어안는 문화적 개념으로 재해석된다. 이민족으로서 중원의 패자가 된 청조도 문화적 화이론에 입각한 대일통 사상을 대제국 통합의 바탕으로 삼는다. 청조의 전성기를 이룩한 강희ㆍ옹정ㆍ건륭의 세 황제는 이러한 이념을 바탕으로 황제로서의 자신들의 이미지를 형성해 나간다. 강희제는 민본주의적인 유가 군주의 이미지를 정립하려 노력한 데 비해 옹정제는 重儒 정책을 표방하되 불교와 도교도 포용함으로써 복합다민족 국가에 걸맞은 군주상을 정립하려한다. 그러나 복합다민족 제국 위에 군림하는 새로운 황제상을 확립한 것은 건륭제였다. 그는 만주족에 대해서는 大汗으로서, 한족에 대해서는 민본적 유가군 주로, 티벳과 몽골인들에 대해서는 문수보살 황제로서의 이미지를 구축해나감으로써 다원적 대일통을 지향했다. 청조의 황제들은 대일통 사상을 제도적으로만 관철해나간 것이 아니라 시각 이미지를 활용하여 이를 적극적으로 유포했다. 이를 위해 그들은 화원제도를 적극적으로 활용했고 대일통 이미지에 적합한 화원양식의 형성에 치밀하게 개입한다. 중국 전통화법과 서양화법을 병렬적으로 결합한 화원의 공식 회화양식인 ‘郎體’는 황제의 칙령을 만문, 한문, 몽골문 등으로 병기하여 반포하는 복합 다민족 제국의 운용방식과 통하는 것이다. 이렇게 해서 제작된 이미지들은 세 황제가 각각 지향한 군주로서의 풍모를 선양하는 중요한 수단이 되었다. 민본주의적 유가 군주를 표방했던 강희제는 자신의 초상을 통한 직설적 방식보다는《佩文齋耕織圖》의 반포와 같은 간접적인 방식으로 자신의 이미지를 구축해나갔다. 유교를 중심으로 하면서 불교, 도교 등도 포용한 옹정제는 강희제와 달리 자신의 단독 초상을 통해 새로운 황제상을 정립하려했다. 그는 자신을 백성과 즐거움을 함께하는 군주로, 혹은 다양한 민족의 지도자로 묘사함으로써 마치 상황에 따라 형상을 바꾸는 부처와 같은 모습으로 자신을 묘사했다. 반면 청 최대의 영토를 이룩한 건륭제는 다양한 민족을 통합하기 위해 다원적 이미지 전략을 구사했다. 불교가 현실정치에 큰 영향력을 행사하는 티벳과 몽골지역에는 문수보살로서의 황제상을 제작 유포하는 한편 기마초상과 같은 大汗으로서의 이미지도 공적인 장소를 통해 전파해나갔다. 한인에 대해서는 덕치를 구현하는 유가군주로의 풍모를 드러내려 했는데 이는 황제의 仁政에 감화되어 極西의 서양인들까지 조공을 바치러 온다는 <萬國來朝圖>에 웅변적으로 표현되었다. 청대 강옹건 시대의 화원을 통한 시각이미지 정책은 정치 이데올로기와 이미지의 상호관계를 파악하는 중요한 사례가 된다는 점에서 미술사연구의 가치있는 자산이라고 할 수 있다. The doctrine of ‘The Great Unity(Daiyitong)’ became prominent in the Han Dynasty as the driving force for efficient governing of the great empire and it refers to the political unification centered on the emperor and the Confucianism-centered unification of ideologies. Although it disappeared during periods of division, the doctrine of ‘The Great Unity’ emerged without fail during periods of unification and became an important ideological means of politically and culturally uniting China. Initially an exclusivist, ethnic group based Sino-Barbarian theory (Huayilun) centered on the central district of China, it became reinterpreted, with the expansion of the Han controlled territory, as a cultural concept embracing the Four Barbarians (Siyi) in the border areas. Even the Qing Dynasty, established by a Manchurian people reigning supreme over central China, took up the doctrine of ‘The Great Unity’, based on cultural Sino-Barbarian theory, as the foundation for the unity of the great empire. The three emperors, Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong, who built the golden age of the Qing Dynasty, constructed their images as emperors based on such ideology. Whereas Emperor Kangxi strived to establish the image of the people-oriented Confucian monarch, Emperor Yongzheng attempted to form the image of the monarch befitting a multi-ethnic nation by embracing Buddhism and Taoism while still pursuing a Confucianism first policy. However it is Emperor Qianlong who established the new image of the emperor dominating over a multi-ethnic empire. He moved toward the pluralistic ‘Great Unity’ by constructing the image of the Great Khan for the Manchu, the people-oriented Confucian monarch for the Hans, and the Manjusri Emperor for the Tibetans and Mongols. Going beyond institutionally establishing the doctrine of ‘The Great Unity’, the Qing emperors actively disseminated it by using visual images. To do so, they aggressively used the Painting Academy system and elaborately intervened in the formation of the Painting Academy’s style appropriate for the Great Unity image. The Castiglione’s style, the official painting form of the Painting Academy which combined traditional Chinese painting and Western painting styles like “collaged images”, conforms to the method of managing a multi-ethnic empire whereby the emperor’s edits are sent out in the Manchu, Chinese, Mongolian, and Tibetan languages written side by side. The images thus formed became important means of propagating the image of the ruler sought by each of the three emperors, respectively. Emperor Kangxi, who espoused the people-oriented Confucian monarch, established his image through indirect methods such as distribution of the Book of Agriculture and Sericulture(Gengzhitu), rather than the direct method of distributing his portrait. Emperor Yongzheng, who embraced Buddhism and Taoism while keeping Confucianism at center, unlike Emperor Kangxi, attempted to establish a new image of the emperor through his own individual portraits. By depicting himself as a ruler who share in the joys of the people, or as a leader of diverse ethnic groups, he expressed himself like Buddha who changed shape appropriately depending on the situation. On the other hand, Emperor Qianlong, who expanded Qing’s territory to its greatest size, employed a strategy of pluralistic images to unite the diverse ethnic groups. In Tibet and Mongol areas where Buddhism exercised tremendous influence, he produced and distributed the image of the emperor as Manjusri Emperor and also disseminated the image of the Great Khan. Toward the Han people, the emperor tried to reveal the image of a Confucian monarch actualizing ethical government, and this was eloquently expressed in the Ten Thousand Envoys Come to Pay Tribute (Wanguolaizhaotu) showing even Extreme Occidental Westerners coming to pay tribute. As an important example for understanding the correlation between political ideology and image, the visual image p

乾隆帝의 西畵 인식과 郎世寧 화풍의 형성: 貢馬圖를 중심으로

이주현 미술사연구회 2009 미술사연구 Vol.- No.23

The intermarriage of Chinese and European painting technique began when a handful of European missionary artists were accepted into the Qing court. The most famous of the Jesuit missionary painters was the Giuseppe Castiglione, Lang Shining(1688-1766), who arrived China in 1715 and went on to serve emperor Yongzheng and Qianlong. He created new style of court painting, in which european chiaroscuro and scientific perspective intermingled with Chinese traditional pigments. On the one hand Qianlong, the great admirer of european civilization, supported Lang Shining to portray imperial family or to record important historical events, on the other hand the emperor controlled and managed Lang’s painting process. The detailed daily record in Archives of the Department of the Imperial Household(淸檔)informs us that Qianlong ordered Lang Shining to fullfil following duties for this purpose: 1. Lang Shining had to made sketches or drafts before he formally start to paint. The works could not be executed until the emperor agreed to Lang’s draft. 2. On the instruction of Qianlong, Lang Shining had to collaborate on a painting with chinese court painter. The main subjects which need realistic rendering of light and shadow such as emperors face, muscles of horses or magnificent feathers of peacocks were mostly executed by Lang Shining, the background with trees and mountains of calligraphic brushstrokes executed by chinese painters. 3. Lang Shining had to copy the works of great chinese masters in traditional chinese style. Throughout his life Qianlong had a strong affection for his horses, many of which he had portrayed by Lang Shining. Although horses had been a popular subject in Chinese painting since the Tang Dynasty, the emperor seems to have preferred the European naturalistic treatment of his horses to a more traditional Chinese linear rendering. However Qianlong also wished that the western characteristics did not overshadow traditional chinese aesthetics. Eight Imperial Horses by Lang Shining for example shows an interesting intermarriage of european and chinese painting techniques. The naturalistically rendered horses are superimposed on landscapes painted in Chinese style. The green and blue colors of the background and the composition devided by trees and river remind Noble Steed in autumn landscape of Zhao Mengfu. Ten Imperial Horses-Ruyicong shows typical western painting technique in the naturalistically rendered horse muscles and realistic patterns on skin. However the simple composition and the inscription in which the name and size of each horse appeared in Chinese, Manchu and Uighur, remind us Five Horses by Li Goglin. In the inscription on this painting Qianglong named Lang’s style as“convexo-concave painting method, aotudanqingfa, 凹凸丹靑法”. In Steeds dedicated by Dzungar tribe three envoys of Dzungar tribe and horses dedicated to Emperor Qianlong are depicted. The whole subjects of the work are described just in ink without any color. The thin ink line and the lateral pose of the horse are similar to the technique“baimiao”of Li Gonglin in Song Dynasty. Lang Shining’s horse painting exemplify the new direction of court art during the reign of Qianlong. Lang brought wih him, in person, to the imperial court itself, scientific knowledge of anatomy, light and perspective, and more naturalistic means of representation. For the first time European and Chinese painters were able to share their skill and collaborate on paintings, creating works that were a new fusion of western and chinese painting technique.

淸 乾隆 前ㆍ中期 朝貢國 使臣의 황제 朝見 방식과 그 특징

한승현 명청사학회 2025 명청사연구 Vol.- No.63

This study analyzes changes in the Qing emperor’s reception of tributary envoys from the accession of the Qianlong Emperor in 1735 to the period before 1780. During this time, Annamese and Ryukyu envoys, like the Winter Solstice envoys (冬至使) from Joseon, typically arrived at the end of the year and had the opportunity to pay homage to the emperor through the New Year’s Day ceremony. In the early years of his reign, Qianlong granted imperial summons (zhaojian 召見) to envoys from Ryukyu, Siam, and Sulu, recognizing the arduous maritime journeys they undertook to present tribute. In contrast, he did not extend the same privilege to envoys from overland tributary states such as Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma, demonstrating a differentiated approach to the reception of tributary envoys. After 1749, a new audience method called zhiying (祗迎) (ritual of receiving the emperor) was introduced, allowing envoys from Siam, Ryukyu, Laos, and Korea to pay homage to the emperor. Zhiying was originally a domestic ceremony in which Qing officials welcomed or bid farewell to the emperor’s carriage on the road when he departed or returned from an imperial tour or a ritual ceremony. However, as envoys from tributary states began to participate in this event, it replaced imperial summons and functioned as a method for receiving foreign envoys. With the Qianlong Emperor frequently embarking on imperial tours from the 1750s onward, zhiying became a convenient means to accommodate envoys who arrived outside the usual year-end schedule. However, zhiying did not convey the same level of imperial favor as imperial summons. While Qianlong discontinued imperial summons for tributary envoys after his early reign, he actively granted them to Mongol princes and nobles, as well as emissaries from the Zunghar, Kazakh, Kokand, and other regions in Central Asia. This selective practice reflects the Qing Empire’s strategic prioritization of stability in Central Asia and the northwest frontier over relations with tributary states during this period. However, during the 1770s, the frequency of imperial audiences for tributary envoys increased, signaling a gradual shift in Qianlong’s diplomatic focus toward strengthening ties with tributary states. By the 1780s, the reception of tributary envoys had significantly improved. Imperial banquets, which had previously been reserved for Mongol princes and nobles from the Outer Vassal States (waifan 外藩), were extended to tributary envoys. This allowed them to partake in imperial festivities, receive wine from the emperor, and be summoned before the throne to directly hear his words during the festivities. These developments indicate that, with the stabilization of the northwestern frontier, Qianlong increasingly sought to reinforce diplomatic relations with tributary states as part of his broader foreign policy strategy.

1780년 열하의 칠순 만수절과 건륭의 ‘제국’

구범진 명청사학회 2013 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.40

This paper examines the historical context of the Qianlong emperor's seventy-sui birthday celebration in Chengde, 1780. To many scholars, this birthday celebration was historically significant mainly because of the Third Panchen Lama's presence there. While it is true that Qianlong gave special treatment to the Panchen Lama to showcase his role as the great protector of Tibetan Buddhism, this element of the event reveals at best one part of the whole and there is another important aspect that deserves our attention. This paper pays attention to Qianlong's seventy-sui birthday, which was unprecedented in Qing history, as a special moment to commemorate his military and political achievements as a Qing ruler, and argues that this birthday celebration was his way of commemorating his empire building in Central Eurasia in the presence of those very peoples who had newly submitted to him. Qianlong chose to celebrate his seventy-sui birthday in Chengde, not in Beijing where all the previous Qianlong's decennial birthdays had been celebrated until the sixty-sui birthday. By choosing Chengde over Beijing, Qianlong was able to bring together all the top leaders of the Dörböt Mongols as well as Uriyangkhais and the Torghut Mongols. Most of these peoples had no immunity toward smallpox and could not have come to Beijing. Qianlong knew very well that the Panchen Lama's presence would make them more willing to come to Chengde since they were followers of the Geluk sect of Tibetan Buddhism. In addition to these peoples, however, Qianlong also brought to Chengde the Muslim begs of East Turkistan and the Tibetan tusi chieftains of western Sichuan. Here it is important to note that it was under the rule of Qianlong that all the above peoples were newly incorporated into the Qing empire. In the 1750s Qianlong completed the conquest of the Zunghars, which brought the Dörböts and Uriyangkhais under his rule, and subjected the Uyghur Muslims. In 1771 the Torghuts returned to the pasture of their ancestors, who had migrated from Zungharia west to the Volga in the 1630s, and declared their allegiance to Qianlong. In addition, in the second Jinchuan campaign of 1771-76 he pacified the Tibetan people in western Sichuan. It is evident, then, that Qianlong's seventy-sui birthday celebration on the 13th day of the 8th lunar month in 1780 was designed not only to commemorate his ties with Tibetan Buddhism. Qianlong's intention was grander: he wanted to orchestrate a spectacular celebration of his lifetime achievements in Qing empire building in Central Eurasia.

清朝官僚とチベット仏教高僧の会見模様を記述した満文檔案の作為性

무라카미 노부아키 만주학회 2015 만주연구 Vol.- No.20

歴史の研究では、史料の利用とその分析が必要である。従来の研究では、清朝の漢文檔案が華夷思想に基づく世界秩序が成立しているという体裁で書かれ、その過程で事実の隠蔽や歪曲が行われたことが指摘されている。しかし、満文檔案の記述の作為性についてはほとんど検討されていない。そこで本稿では、清朝の官僚とチベット仏教の高僧の会見模様を記した満文檔案を分析し、その記述のなかに以下のような作為が見られることを明らかにした。 乾隆朝後半の駐蔵大臣とダライラマの会見では、ダライラマが座に坐ったまま諭旨․賞賜品を受け取り、駐蔵大臣は叩頭してカターを献じるという、チベット仏教の習慣に基づく儀礼が行なわれていた。しかし当時の駐蔵大臣は、会見の様子を満文檔案に記述する際、ダライラマが席から立ち上がって諭旨․賞賜品を受け取ったと記すようにし、その一方で、自らがダライラマに叩頭したことについては檔案に記さないようにしていた。チベット仏教の礼儀に基づく清朝側の言行がそのまま檔案に記述されると、清朝がチベット仏教僧を崇敬していることを公式に認めることになり、皇帝の権威の至高性を否定することになる。そこで清朝は、満文檔案ではダライラマ․パンチェンラマを皇帝に準ずる存在として扱うにとどめ、しかもこうした優遇は皇帝からの特別の恩恵であり、彼らはそれに深く感謝して皇帝の意思に従っていると叙述することで、皇帝の権威こそが至高であると見えるような体裁を整えたのだと考えられる。乾隆朝後半の満文檔案には、漢文檔案のような華夷思想の強い制約が存在したわけではないが、皇帝の権威の至高性を損ないかねない事柄については記述を避けるという規範があり、それに基づく作為が施されたのである。 清朝官僚とチベット仏教の高僧との会見儀礼は、乾隆末年に大きく変化した。これ以降、ダライラマは座から立ち上がって駐蔵大臣を迎え、駐蔵大臣は叩頭せずに高僧と会見するようになる。しかし嘉慶朝に入ると、駐蔵大臣の満文檔案に高僧の側が跪拝や三跪九叩頭の礼を行なったと記述されるようになる。これらの記述が事実であったとは考えられないが、華夷思想的な文脈によりチベット仏教の高僧を皇帝よりも明らかに低い地位にあり、皇帝に臣下の礼をとる存在として叙述する点が、乾隆朝後半の満文檔案における作為のあり方とは大きく異なっている。この違いには、チベット仏教の信奉者であった乾隆帝と、チベット仏教に対して冷淡な対応をとった嘉慶帝との、チベット仏教に対する態度の相違が反映されていると見てよいだろう。 Historical research requires the use and analysis of historical sources. Research up to the present has suggested that the Chinese-Language Archives of the Qing Dynasty were written under the pretension that a world order based on Sino-centric thought was in place and that the archives therefore concealed and distorted the facts. However, the fabrication of descriptions in the Manchu-Language Archives has for the most part not been investigated. Therefore, in this paper, I will analyze the Manchu-Language Archives that record the meetings between Qing bureaucrats and Tibetan high priests. I will then reveal that the following fabrications can be seen in the descriptions described below. In a meeting between the Dalai Lama and the resident official dispatched to Tibet by the Qing court in the latter half of the reign of the Qianlong emperor, the Dalai Lama was bestowed with an imperial edict and an imperial gift while he was seated. The resident official dispatched to Tibet by the Qing court then received a katag while kowtowing, as is the custom in Tibetan Buddhism. However, if the actions taken by the Qing dynasty in accordance with the customs of Tibetan Buddhism had been recorded, the concept that the Qing dynasty revered the Tibetan high priests and the supreme authority of the emperor would have been negated. Consequently, in the Manchu-Language Archives, the Qing dynasty treated the existence of the Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama as someone who is subordinate to the emperor. Moreover, it is thought that by describing this warm reception as a special blessing from the emperor where the Tibetan high priests were deeply grateful and obedient to the emperor’s will, Qing dynasty created the appearance of the supreme authority of the emperor. The meeting formalities between Qing bureaucrats and the Tibetan high priests changed significantly at the end of the Qianlong emperor’s reign. Thereafter, the Dalai Lama rose from his seat to meet the resident official dispatched to Tibet by the Qing court, and the resident official dispatched to Tibet by the Qing court met the high priests without kowtowing. As we enter the reign of the Jiaqing emperor, however, the high priests are described in the Manchu-Language Archives by the resident official dispatched by the Qing court as performing deep bowing and a movement where they bowed three times and touched their head to the ground nine times. It is believed that this is not a factual description but was used to clarify the lower position of the Tibetan high priests with respect to the emperor in the context of Sino-centric ideology. This description of paying homage to the emperor is a far cry from the fabrications in the Manchu-Language Archives from the latter half of the reign of the Qianlong emperor.