《近代中国对外关系史 The History of Modern China's Foreign Relations》课程教学资源（阅读材料）ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM

ON THE CHING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG HARVARD UNIVERSITY CONTENTS PAGE 1.The traditional role of tribute 185 2.Tributaries of the late Ming. 144 Table 1:Ming tributaries c.1587. 151 3.The Li Fan Yiian (Court of Colonial Affairs)under the Ch'ing 158 4.Ch'ing tributaries from the south and east,-general regulations 163 Table 2:Regular Ch'ing tributaries 174 Table 3:Frequency and routes of tribute 176 5.European countries in the tributary system 178 Table 4:European embassies to the Court of Peking. 188 6.Ch'ing tribute embassies and foreign trade 190 Table 5:Tribute embassies 1662-1911 193 Table 6:Non-tributary trading countries 1818. 02 7.A selected list of Ch'ing works 1644-1860 on maritime relations. e06 8.Index of tributaries listed in six editions of the Collected Statutes 219 Appendix 1:Bibliographical note.. 238 Appendix 2:Additional lists of Ch'ing tributaries. 248 Appendix 3:Author and title index to section 7. 245 1.THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF TRIBUTE Chinese foreign policy in the nineteenth century can be understood only against its traditional Chinese background,the tributary system. This system for the conduct of foreign relations had been directly inherited from the Ming dynasty (1368-1644)and modified to suit the needs of the Manchus.As a Confucian world-order in the Far East,it continued formally in existence until the very end of the nineteenth century,and was superseded in practice only gradually, after 1842,by the British treaty system which has until recently governed the foreign relations of Siam,Japan,and other states,as well as China.The Chinese diplomatic documents of a century ago are therefore really unintelligible unless they are studied in the light of the imperial tributary system which produced them.1 :We are indebted to Prof.C.S.GARDNER for assistance on several points,par- ticularly regarding the table of western embassies in part 5.This article,like its predecessors,is intended to deal with administrative problems of importance for the study of Chinese foreign relations in the nineteenth century.J.K.FAIRBANK and S.Y.TENG,On the Transmission of Ch'ing Documents,HJAS 4.12-46;On the Types and Uses of Ch'ing Documents,ibid.,5.1-71 (Corrigendum p.59,Shen-ch'eng:for ch'eng呈read ch'en陳)， 135

ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TENG HARVARD UNIVERSITY CONTENTS PAGE 1. The traditional role of tribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2. Tributaries of the late Ming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Table 1: Ming tributaries c. 1587. . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 3. The Li Fan Yuan (Court of Colonial Affairs) under the Ch'ing 158 4. Ch'ing tributaries from the south and east,-general regulations 163 Table 2: Regular Ch'ing tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Table 3: Frequency and routes of tribute . . . . . . . . . . 176 5. European countries in the tributary system . . . . . . . . . . 178 Table 4: European embassies to the Court of Peking. . . . . . . 188 6. Ch'ing tribute embassies and foreign trade . . . . . . . . . . 190 Table 5: Tribute embassies 1662-1911 . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Table 6: Non-tributary trading countries 1818. . . . . . . . . 202 7. A selected list of Ch'ing works 1644-1860 on maritime relations.. . .206 8. Index of tributaries listed in six editions of the Collected Statutes . . . 919 Appendix 1: Bibliographical note. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 Appendix 2: Additional lists of Ch'ing tributaries. . . . . . . . . . 243 Appendix 3: Author and title index to section 7 . . . . . . . . . .245 1. THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF TRIBUTE Chinese foreign policy in the nineteenth century can be understood only against its traditional Chinese background, the tributary system. This system for the conduct of foreign relations had been directly inherited from the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) and modified to suit the needs of the Manchus. As a Confucian world-order in the Far East, it continued formally in existence until the very end of the nineteenth century, and was superseded in practice only gradually, after 1842, by the British treaty system which has until recently governed the foreign relations of Siam, Japan, and other states, as well as China. The Chinese diplomatic documents of a century ago are therefore really unintelligible unless they are studied in the light of the imperial tributary system which produced them.' 'We are indebted to Prof. C. S. GARDNER for assistance on several points, par￾ticularly regarding the table of western embassies in part 5. This article, like its predecessors, is intended to deal with administrative problems of importance for the study of Chinese foreign relations in the nineteenth century. Cf. J. K. FAIRBANK and S. Y. TENG, On the Transmission of Ch'ing Documents. HJAS 4.12-46; On the Types and Uses of Ch'ing Documents, ibid., 5. 1-71 (Corrigendum p. 59, Shen-ch'eng: for ch'eng a read ch'6n A). 135

186 J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG The ramifications of this vast subject,in political theory,in inter- national trade,and in diplomacy,have been explored by a few pioneer scholars,2 some of whom have traced the development of the admini- stration of foreign trade from the Sung up to the late Ming,while others have painstakingly established translations of texts concerning the seven great Ming expeditions of the early fifteenth century.These expeditions under the eunuch CHENG Ho and others in the period 1403- 1433 took Chinese fleets of as many as 60 vessels and 27,000 men into the Indian Ocean and in some cases as far as Arabia and Africa,and the period has rightly attracted attention as the high point of Chinese tributary relations.Studies of the tributary system in the Ch'ing period,however,are less numerous;relatively little effort has been made to link the sorry Chinese foreign policy of the nineteenth cen- tury with the great tradition which lay behind it.To do so will require the efforts of many workers over a long period. The present article attempts a preliminary survey of the tributary system as it developed under the Ch'ing dynasty of the Manchus (1644-1912).In order to reach useful conclusions on a subject of such magnitude,we have based this study chiefly upon the various editions of the Collected Statutes (Hui-tien),s which not only are the fundamental official source for the general structure of the system, but also reflect its history,as mirrored in successive changes and re- vised editions,over a period of more than two hundred years.The Collected Statutes,moreover,were issued both as a record of admini- strative practice and as a guide to the bureaucracy in its day by day activities.In this they excel for our purposes the official compilations of a later date,such as the Draft History of the Ch'ing Dynasty (Ch'ing-shih kao),which are at one remove from the scene and compiled by,if not for,posterity.Before proceeding to the pre- sentation and analysis of this material,we offer below a brief ex- [For this long bibliographical note,including the abbreviations used in footnotes, see appendix 1 at end of this article.] sTa-ming hui-tien大明會典or Ch'in-ting ta-ching hui--tien欽定清；the various editions are cited hereafter by the reigns in which they were issued,chronologically as follows: Wan-li hui-tien (Ta-ming hui-tien,preface dated 1587), K'ang-hsi hui-tien (Ta-ch'ing hui-tien,pub.1690), Yung-cheng hui-tien (pref.1732), Ch'ien-lung hui-tien,and Ch'ien-lung hui-tien tse-li (both completed 1764), Chia-ch'ing hui-tien,and Chia-ch'ing hui-tien shih-li (both completed 1818), Kuang-hsi hui-tien,and Kuang-hsi hui-tien shih-li (both pub.1899)

136 J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TENG The ramifications of this vast subject, in political theory, in inter￾national trade, and in diplomacy, have been explored by a few pioneer scholars,2 some of whom have traced the development of the admini￾stration of foreign trade from the Sung up to the late Ming, while others have painstakingly established translations of texts concerning the seven great Ming expeditions of the early fifteenth century. These expeditions under the eunuch CHENG Ho and others in the period 1403- 1433 took Chinese fleets of as many as 60 vessels and 27,000 men into the Indian Ocean and in some cases as far as Arabia and Africa, and the period has rightly attracted attention as the high point of Chinese tributary relations. Studies of the tributary system in the Ch'ing period, however, are less numerous; relatively little effort has been made to link the sorry Chinese foreign policy of the nineteenth cen￾tury with the great tradition which lay behind it. To do so will require the efforts of many workers over a long period. The present article attempts a preliminary survey of the tributary system as it developed under the Ch'ing dynasty of the Manchus (1644-1912). In order to reach useful conclusions on a subject of such magnitude, we have based this study chiefly upon the various editions of the Collected Statutes (Hui-tien),3 which not only are the fundamental official source for the general structure of the system, but also reflect its history, as mirrored in successive changes and re￾vised editions, over a period of more than two hundred years. The Collected Statutes, moreover, were issued both as a record of admini￾strative practice and as a guide to the bureaucracy in its day by day activities. In this they excel for our purposes the official compilations of a later date, such as the Draft History of the Ch'ing Dynasty (Ch'ing-shih kao), which are at one remove from the scene and compiled by, if not for, posterity. Before proceeding to the pre￾sentation and analysis of this material, we offer below a brief ex- 2 [For this long bibliographical note, including the abbreviations used in footnotes, see appendix 1 at end of this article.] 3 Ta-ming hui-tien *a At or Ch'in-ting ta-ch'ing hui-tien A ,; the various editions are cited hereafter by the reigns in which they were issued, chronologically as follows: Wan-li hui-tien (Ta-ming hui-tien, preface dated 1587), K'ang-hsi hui-tien (Ta-ch'ing hui-tien, pub. 1690), Yung-che'ng hui-tien (pref. 1732), Ch'ien-lung hui-tien, and Ch'ien-lung hui-tien tsei-li (both completed 1764), Chia-ch'ing hui-tien, and Chia-ch'ing hui-tien shih-li (both completed 1818), Kuang-hsui hui-tien, and Kuang-hsi hui-tien shih-li (both pub. 1899)

ON THE CHING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 137 planatory discussion of the function of tribute in the Chinese state, which may serve to pose further problems for research. For purpose of analysis it may be pointed out (1)that the tributary system was a natural outgrowth of the cultural pre- eminence of the early Chinese,(2)that it came to be used by the rulers of China for political ends of self-defense,(3)that in practice it had a very fundamental and important commercial basis,and (4) that it served as the medium for Chinese international relations and diplomacy.It was,in short,a scheme of things entire,and deserves attention as one historical solution to problems of world-organization. Behind the tributary system as it became institutionalized in the Ming and Ch'ing periods lay the age-old tradition of Chinese cultural superiority over the barbarians.Continuously from the bronze age, when Shang civilization first appears as a culture-island in North China,this has been a striking element in Chinese thought,per- petuated by the eternal conflict between the settled agrarian society of the Yellow River basin and the pastoral nomads of the steppe beyond the Wall,as well as by the persistent expansion of the Chinese to the south among the tribes whose remnants are now being absorbed in Yunnan and Kweichow.From this contact with the nomads of the north and west and with the aborigines of the south,the Chi- nese appear to have derived certain basic assumptions which may be stated as follows:first,that Chinese superiority over the bar- barians had a cultural rather than a mere political basis;it rested +Satisfactory equivalents of certain key terms are not easily established.Fan (fence,boundary,frontier)as used with reference to countries outside China has a connotation somewhere in between "foreign"and "barbarian";we have usually used the gentler term. Man,L,Jung,and Ti罐夷我狄in conjunction refer to the barbarians of the south, east,west,and north,respectively;but I serves also as a generic term for all bar- barians together (Cf.Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao 324.4).The term Ssu-i(lit."Four barbarians")is a collective term for the various barbarians dwelling in the four quarters of the compass on the periphery of the civilized world of which China was the center.It therefore indicates the barbarians in general,-all the barbarians,not those of any par- ticular places..BRUNNERT392 is in error in translating HuiT'ung Ssu I Kuan會同四譯 (for)as "Residence for Envoys of the Four Tributary States;here were domiciled Envoys from Korea,Siam,Tonkin,and Burma..." Under the Ming the Ssu I Kuan had had charge of relations both with the bar- barians of the north and west and with those of the east and south,there being no Li Fan Yuan(see sec..3 below).Thus the Ssu-i-kuan kao四夷館考(Lo Chen-yi ed.,1924)records relations with the Mongols,Samarkand,Turfan,Tibet,Hami,etc., and also with Champa,Japan,Java,Burma,and the like

ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 137 planatory discussion of the function of tribute in the Chinese state, which may serve to pose further problems for research. For purpose of analysis it may be pointed out (1) that the tributary system was a natural outgrowth of the cultural pre￾eminence of the early Chinese, (2) that it came to be used by the rulers of China for political ends of self-defense, (3) that in practice it had a very fundamental and important commercial basis, and (4) that it served as the medium for Chinese international relations and diplomacy. It was, in short, a scheme of things entire, and deserves attention as one historical solution to problems of world-organization. Behind the tributary system as it became institutionalized in the Ming and Ch'ing periods lay the age-old tradition of Chinese cultural superiority over the barbarians.4 Continuously from the bronze age, when Shang civilization first appears as a culture-island in North China, this has been a striking element in Chinese thought, per￾petuated by the eternal conflict between the settled agrarian society of the Yellow River basin and the pastoral nomads of the steppe beyond the Wall, as well as by the persistent expansion of the Chinese to the south among the tribes whose remnants are now being absorbed in Yunnan and Kweichow. From this contact with the nomads of the north and west and with the aborigines of the south, the Chi￾nese appear to have derived certain basic assumptions which may be stated as follows: first, that Chinese superiority over the bar￾barians had a cultural rather than a mere political basis; it rested ' Satisfactory equivalents of certain key terms are not easily established. Fan is (fence, boundary, frontier) as used with reference to countries outside China has a connotation somewhere in between " foreign " and " barbarian "; we have usually used the gentler term. Man, I, Jung, and Ti pAJt k in conjunction refer to the barbarians of the south, east, west, and north, respectively; but I serves also as a generic term for all bar￾barians together (Cf. Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao 324. 4). The term Ssfi-i Vq I4 (lit. "Four barbarians ") is a collective term for the various barbarians dwelling in the four quarters of the compass on the periphery of the civilized world of which China was the center. It therefore indicates the barbarians in general,-all the barbarians, not those of any par￾ticular places. BRUNNERT 392 is in error in translating Hui T'ung SsA I Kuan I i E E (for A) , as "Residence for Envoys of the Four Tributary States; here were domiciled Envoys from Korea, Siam, Tonkin, and Burma. Under the Ming the SsA I Kuan had had charge of relations both with the bar￾barians of the north and west and with those of the east and south, there being no Li Fan Yuan (see sec. 3 below). Thus the S&i-i-kuan kao Aft (Lo Chen-yii ed., 1924) records relations with the Mongols, Samarkand, Turfan, Tibet, Hami, etc., and also with Champa, Japan, Java, Burma, and the like

138 J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG less upon force than upon the Chinese way of life embodied in such things as the Confucian code of conduct and the use of the Chinese written language;the sign of the barbarian was not race or origin so much as non-adherence to this way of life.From this it followed,secondly,that those barbarians who wished to "come and be transformed"(lai-hua),and so participate in the benefits of (Chinese)civilization,must recognize the supreme position of the Emperor;for the Son of Heaven represented all mankind,both Chinese and barbarian,in his ritual sacrifices before the forces of nature. Adherence to the Chinese way of life automatically entailed the recognition of the Emperor's mandate to rule all men.This supremacy of the Emperor as mediator between Heaven and Earth was most obviously acknowledged in the performance of the kotow, the three kneelings and nine prostrations to which European envoys later objected.5 It was also acknowledged by the bringing of a tribute s YANo (2)151-180 summarizes numerous Chinese and western references to the subject. It should be emphasized that the relationship to the Son of Heaven expressed by the kotow was shared by all mankind,Chinese and barbarian alike.The highest dignitaries of the empire performed this ceremony on appropriate oceasion,-as did the Emperor himself when paying reverence to Heaven (pai-t'ien).The kotow performed unilaterally,on the other hand,expressed an inferiority of status in the universal order,without which there could be no order.It was therefore appropriate, honorable,and indeed good manners when performed in the right context.Other contexts might require less elaborate ceremonies,such as one kneeling and three prostrations,.Strictly speaking,this was also a“knocking of the head,”ko-t'ou磕頭. For clarity we suggest the term "full kotow"for three kneelings and nine prostra- tions,(theoretically)knocking the head upon the ground,san-kuei chiu-k'ou li 三跪九p體；“modified kotow”for three kneelings and nine reverences bowing the head over the hands upon the ground,san-kuei chiu-pai li;and "single kotow" or "double kotow"for one-third or two-thirds,respectively,of the full kotow, i-kuei san-k'ou li,erh-kuei liu-k'ou li. This universal order of ceremony which expressed the order of all mankind may be illustrated by the following random references to the Ta-Ch'ing t'ung-li (chiian4 chun-li,military ceremonial):in the ceremony of announcing the sacrifices,the Emperor performed the modified kotow (4b).On receiving a seal indirectly from the Emperor,a generalissimo (Ta Chiang Chiin;cf.B 658:Field Marshal)and his staff performed the full kotow (12b).In another ceremony,they and the princes and high ministers of state followed the Emperor in the modified kotow (21).The princes and ministers later performed one kneeling and one prostration (i-kuei i-k'ou li),and again one head-knocking from their seats各於坐求行一叩醴(eIb).When a Mongolian prince met a prince of the imperial Manchu clan,they both performed a double kotow (Ch.46 pin-li,ceremonial for guests.1).Officials at the capital and in the provinces saluted each other with three formal bows (5,11,15 san-i;

138 J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TtNG less upon force than upon the Chinese way of life embodied in such things as the Confucian code of conduct and the use of the Chinese written language; the sign of the barbarian was not race or origin so much as non-adherence to this way of life. From this it followed, secondly, that those barbarians who wished to "come and be transformed" (lai-hua), and so participate in the benefits of (Chinese) civilization, must recognize the supreme position of the Emperor; for the Son of Heaven represented all mankind, both Chinese and barbarian, in his ritual sacrifices before the forces of nature. Adherence to the Chinese way of life automatically entailed the recognition of the Emperor's mandate to rule all men. This supremacy of the Emperor as mediator between Heaven and Earth was most obviously acknowledged in the performance of the kotow, the three kneelings and nine prostrations to which European envoys later objected.5 It was also acknowledged by the bringing of a tribute 5YANO (2) 151-180 summarizes numerous Chinese and western references to the subject. It should be emphasized that the relationship to the Son of Heaven expressed by the kotow was shared by all mankind, Chinese and barbarian alike. The highest dignitaries of the empire performed this ceremony on appropriate occasion,-as did the Emperor himself when paying reverence to Heaven (pai-t'ien ) The kotow performed unilaterally, on the other hand, expressed an inferiority of status in the universal order, without which there could be no order. It was therefore appropriate, honorable, and indeed good manners when performed in the right context. Other contexts might require less elaborate ceremonies, such as one kneeling and three prostrations. Strictly speaking, this was also a " knocking of the head," k'o-t'ou ;ffl￾For clarity we suggest the term " full kotow " for three kneelings and nine prostra￾tions, (theoretically) knocking the head upon the ground, san-kuei chiu-k'ou 1i -WE JL lDjoiP; " modified kotow " for three kneelings and nine reverences bowing the head over the hands upon the ground, san-kuei chiu-pai li; and " single kotow" or " double kotow " for one-third or two-thirds, respectively, of the full kotow,- i-kuei san-k'ou li, erh-kuei liu-k'ou li. This universal order of ceremony which expressed the order of all mankind may be illustrated by the following random references to the Ta-Ch'ing t'ung-li (chilan 42 chfin-li, military ceremonial): in the ceremony of announcing the sacrifices, the Emperor performed the modified kotow (4b). On receiving a seal indirectly from the Emperor, a generalissimo (Ta Chiang Chiin; cf. B 658: Field Marshal) and his staff performed the full kotow (12b). In another ceremony, they and the princes and high ministers of state followed the Emperor in the modified kotow (21). The princes and ministers later performed one kneeling and one prostration (i-kuei i-k'ou li), and again one head-knocking from their seats ?kPfiifPji k (21b). When a Mongolian prince met a prince of the imperial Manchu clan, they both performed a double kotow (Ch. 46 pin-li, ceremonial for guests. 1). Officials at the capital and in the provinces saluted each other with three formal bows (5, 11, 15 san-i 4 4$;

ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 189 of local produce,by the formal bestowal of a seal,comparable to the investiture of a vassal in medieval Europe,and in other ways.Thus the tributary system,as the sum total of these formalities,was the mechanism by which barbarous non-Chinese regions were given their place in the all-embracing Chinese political,and therefore ethical, scheme of things.3 This general theory is of course familiar to the most casual student of Chinese history,and yet the realities of the situation are still a matter of dispute.In the intercourse between the Chinese state and the barbarians,commercial relations became inseparably bound up with tributary.Trade was conducted by barbarian merchants who accompanied the tributary envoy to the frontier or even to the capital;sometimes it was conducted by the members of the mission itself.That tribute was a cloak for trade has been a commonplace ever since merchants from the Roman orient arrived in China in 166 A.D.claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius.Thus Benedict DE GoEz,crossing Central Asia in the year 1604,describes the "sham embassies"of merchants from the western kingdoms who "forge public letters in the names of the kings whom they profess to repre- sent"and"under pretence of being ambassadors go and offer tribute to the Emperor."7 Innumerable other examples could be cited where- cf.GIes 5394 tso-i "to make a salute by bending the body until the hands touch a little below the knees,and then rising and raising the hands to the level of the eyebrows").To a superior official,a single kotow might also be used,perhaps followed by three bows (14b,16b,17).Bows and similar formalities were also prescribed for apprentices,friends,and relatives (20-21).In all this,the prescriptions regarding precedence in entering doors and directions faced in sitting were equally detailed. It should be noted (1)that all ceremonies between individuals were reciprocal in the sense that both parties took part;(2)that the ceremonial for barbarian visitors (chiian 45,pin-li)was an integral part of the whole body of ceremonial just referred to.Egalitarian westerners were ill-prepared to maintain their proper status,or any other,in this system of rites. Various aspects of the rationale of tribute have been eloquently set forth by T.C. LIN (2),and its general background by Owen LATTIMORE,Inner Asian Frontiers of China,New York,1940. 1Sir Henry YuLe,revised by H.CoRDIEB,Cathay and the Way Thither...,(4 vols.London 1913-16)4.235,242,243 n.For other examples ef.GROENEVELDT 4-5, DUYVENDAK (1)74 n.,(378-9.CHANG Hsing-lang [Chung-hsi chiao-t'ung shih-liao hui-p'ien中西交通史料滙篇(Miscellaneous historical materials on Sino- western relations),vol.5,p.534]states that the Kansu Governor reported in 1502 that there were more than 150 self-styled rulers (wang)trading from the Western Regions;cf.Ming-shih 332.6 (T'ung-wen shu-chu ed.1894)

ON THE CH'ING TRIBUTARY SYSTEM 139 of local produce, by the formal bestowal of a seal, comparable to the investiture of a vassal in medieval Europe, and in other ways. Thus the tributary system, as the sum total of these formalities, was the mechanism by which barbarous non-Chinese regions were given their place in the all-embracing Chinese political, and therefore ethical, scheme of things.6 This general theory is of course familiar to the most casual student of Chinese history, and yet the realities of the situation are still a matter of dispute. In the intercourse between the Chinese state and the barbarians, commercial relations became inseparably bound up with tributary. Trade was conducted by barbarian merchants who accompanied the tributary envoy to the frontier or even to the capital; sometimes it was conducted by the members of the mission itself. That tribute was a cloak for trade has been a commonplace ever since merchants from the Roman orient arrived in China in 166 A. D. claiming to be envoys of Marcus Aurelius. Thus Benedict DE GOEZ, crossing Central Asia in the year 1604, describes the "sham embassies" of merchants from the western kingdoms who "forge public letters in the names of the kings whom they profess to repre￾sent " and " under pretence of being ambassadors go and offer tribute to the Emperor." 7Innumerable other examples could be cited where￾cf. GuLEs 5394 tso-i f1 "to make a salute by bending the body until the hands touch a little below the knees, and then rising and raising the hands to the level of the eyebrows "). To a superior official, a single kotow might also be used, perhaps followed by three bows (14b, 16b, 17). Bows and similar formalities were also prescribed for apprentices, friends, and relatives (20-21). In all this, the prescriptions regarding precedence in entering doors and directions faced in sitting were equally detailed. It should be noted (1) that all ceremonies between individuals were reciprocal in the sense that both parties took part; (2) that the ceremonial for barbarian visitors (chian 45, pin-li) was an integral part of the whole body of ceremonial just referred to. Egalitarian westerners were ill-prepared to maintain their proper status, or any other, in this system of rites. 6 Various aspects of the rationale of tribute have been eloquently set forth by T. C. LIN (2), and its general background by Owen LATTIMORE, Inner Asian Frontiers of China, New York, 1940. 7 Sir Henry YULE, revised by H. CORDIER, Cathay and the Way Thither . . ., (4 vols. London 1913-16) 4. 235, 242, 243 n. For other examples cf. GROENEVELDT 4-5, DUYVENDAK (1) 74 n., (2) 378-9. CHANG Hsing-lang q',h [Chung-hsi chiao-t'ung shih-liao hui-p'ien 4' a " (Miscellaneous historical materials on Sino￾western relations), vol. 5, p. 534] states that the Kansu Governor reported in 1502 that there were more than 150 self-styled rulers (wang) trading from the Western Regions; cf. Ming-shih 332. 6 (T'ung-wen shu-chii ed. 1894)