¹ Ho, Ping-ti, “The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History,” JAS, XXVI (February 1967), 191Google Scholar.

² Fairbank, John K., “The Manchu-Chinese Dyarchy in the 1840's and 50's,” FEQ, XII (May 1953), 268–270Google Scholar; Ho, Alfred Kuo-liang, “The Grand Council in the Ch'ing Dynasty,” FEQ, XI (February 1952), 175Google Scholar.

³ Ch'ü, Tʻung-tsu, Local Government, in China under the Ch'ing (Cambridge, 1962), p. 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Table 5; Anon., “The Share Taken by Chinese and Bannermen Respectively in the Government of China,” China Review, VI (1877–78), 137Google Scholar; Fred S. A. Bourne, “Historical Table of the High Officials Composing the Central and Provincial Governments of China,” ibid., VII (1878–79), 315.

⁴ Some of the leading literature on the nature of alien rule in Chinese history is: Iminzokft no Shina tochi gaisetsu [Outline of the Rule of Alien Peoples over China] (Tokyo, 1945)Google Scholar, which represented a collaborative effort of 16 Japanese scholars; Fairbank, John K., “Synarchy under the Treaties,” in Chinese Thought and Institutions, ed. Fairbank, John K. (Chicago, 1957), pp. 204–231Google Scholar, which summarized the findings of scholars in this field (including the Japanese group just mentioned), and related the historical pattern of alien rule to western participation in China's government under the unequal treaty system; Wittfogel, Karl A. and Chia-sheng, Feng, History of Chinese Society: Liao (907–1125) (Philadelphia, 1949)Google Scholar, which presented a comparative analysis of the patterns of alien rule during the Liao, Chin, Yuan, and Ch'ing dynasties.

⁵ See, for example, Reischauer, Edwin O., Fairbank, John K., and Craig, Albert M., A History of East Asian Civilization, Vol. II: East Asia, the Modern Transformation (Boston, 1965), p. 328Google Scholar; Paochao, Hsieh, The Government of China, 1644–1911 (Baltimore, 1925), p. 297Google Scholar.

⁶ Fairbank, “Dyarchy” pp. 272–273, for the period 1837–1862; Michael, Franz, “Military Organization and Power Structure of China During the Taiping Rebellion,” Pacific Historical Review, XVIII (1949), 482–483Google Scholar, for the period 1850–1890.

⁷ The first attempt that I know of to use this approach was made by a Taiwan scholar, Tsungmao, Fu, in his recent study of the tu-ju institution during the Ch'ing dynasty (Ch'ing-tai tu-ju chih-tu [Taipei, 1963], pp. 167–168Google Scholar). His statistics, though, are based on a sample that represents only about one half of the total number of tu-ju, because he gathered his information from the biographical sections of the Ch'ing-shih kao [Draft History of the Ch'ing Dynasty], Only the more important tu-fu would rate a biographical entry in the dynastic history.

⁸ For an account of Ming provincial institutions, see Hucker, Charles O., “Governmental Organization of the Ming Dynasty,” HJAS, XXI (1958), 38–43Google Scholar; Fu Tsung-mao, Tu-ju, pp. 5–8.

⁹ Hummel, Arthur W., (ed.), Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period (Washington, 1943), I, 358–360Google Scholar. Other holdovers were Sung Ch'üan (ibid., II, 688–689), Li Chien, Li Ch'i-feng, Miao Tso-t'u, and Kao Tʻou-kuang.

¹⁰ The Yün-yang governorship was reestablished in 1676 as a temporary measure after the outbreak of the rebellion of the three feudatories and then abolished in 1679 when the incumbent governor was shifted to Szechwan; the Kiangsu governorship was called Kiangning until 1689, while the Hupei governorship was called Hukuang and the Hunan governorship was called P'ien-yuan until 1723; the Chihli governorship was abolished in 1724, the Szechwan governorship in 1754, and the Kansu governorship in 1764. There were no further changes in governorships until very late in the Ch'ing period.

¹¹ For example, from 1661 to 1665 there was one governor-general in each provincial capital (Shengtsu Jen-huang-ti [K'ang-his] shih-lu [Veritable Records of the K'ang-hsi Emperor] [Taipei, 1964], pp. 92 [ch. 4.11a] and 239 [ch. 15.14a]). Also, in the short period of 1727–38, there were a bewildering number of changes in the personnel and jurisdictions of tu-fu posts in the Fukien-Chekiang and Kwangsi-Yunnan-Kweichow areas. Some of the personnel involved were such favorites of the Yung-cheng emperor as O-erh-tʻai, Li Wei, Shin I-chih, Chi Tseng-yun, Yin-chi-shan, and Chang Kuang-ssu (Ta-Ch'ing huitien shih-li [Administrative Statutes and Precedents of the Ch'ing Empire], Kuang-hsü edition [Taipei, 1963]. PP. 5352–53 [ch. 23.12a–13b]).

¹² K'ang-hsi shih-lu, pp. 100 (ch. 5.3b) and 1361 (ch. 102.13a); see also Huang-Ch'ing ming-ch'entsou-i [Memorials of Famous Ch'ing Officials] (Chia-ch'ing edition), 17.72.

¹³ K'ang-hsi shih-lu, p. 119 (ch. 6.18a).

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 617 (ch. 44.17b–18a); Hui-tien shih-li, p. 5351 (ch. 23.9a).

¹⁵ K'ang-hsi shih-lu, p. 623 (ch. 45.6a). The changing responsibilities of governors in the early Ch'ing period can be seen in the imperial instructions (ch'ih-yii) given to new appointees. Over 2000 of these ch'ih-yü can still be found in the Nei-ko archives housed in Academia Sinica's Institute of History and Philology in Taiwan. For the first two emperors of the dynasty, with whom I am especially concerned, there are a total of 441 pieces (128 from Shun-chih's reign and 313 from K'ang-his's reign), and among these pieces can be found a few imperial instructions to tu-fu. The earliest extant ch'ih-yü to any governor after the 1661 decision to take military control out of the governor's hands was issued to Lin Tʻienching, who was sent to Yensui (in Shensi) in 1662 (lieh-tzu 16, K'ang-hsi 1/8/21). Lin was told that all military matters were under control of the provincial commander-in-chief and he should not interfere. The emperor continued to issue identical instructions to other governor appointees until 1674. In that year, however, Hang-ai was appointed governor of Shensi and told to work widi the governor-general and tʻi-tu in all military matters (chang-tzu 5, K'ang-hsi 13/8/26).

¹⁶ Hui-tien shih-li, pp. 5352–55 (ch. 23.12a–18b). This arrangement was approved for Shansi in 1734, Honan in 1739, Shantung in 1742, Kweichow in 1747, Kiangsi in 1749, and Anhwei in 1803. There was no governor-general with jurisdiction over Shansi, Honan, or Shantung; the governor-general for Yunnan and Kweichow was stationed at Yunnan-fu (Kunming), and the governor-general for the Kiangsi-Kiangsu-Anhwei area was stationed at Kiangning (Nanking).

¹⁷ Hui-tien shih-li, p. 5354 (ch. 23.15b).

¹⁸ K'ang-hsi shih-lu, pp. 68 (ch. 2.24a), 75 (ch. 3.1b–2a), 77–78 (ch. 3.53–73), and 79 (ch. 3.9b). The post had been abolished and reestablished several times earlier (Shih-tsu Chang-huang-ti [Shun-chih] shih-lu [Veritable Records of the Shun-chih Emperor] [Taipei, 1964], pp. 647–48 [ch. 55.133a–15b], 886 [ch. 75.7b–8a], 990 [ch. 83.24a], 1062 [ch. 89.30–43], 1639 [ch. 138.17a], and 1679 [ch.142.13b–14b]).

¹⁹ Hucker, “Governmental Organization,” pp. 42–43.

²⁰ Hui-tien shih-li, pp. 5353–54, (ch. 23.14b–15a).

²¹ Fu Tsung-mao, Tu-fu, p. 176.

²² Shun-chih shih-lu, p. 854 (ch. 72.3b–4a); for similar remarks, see ibid., pp. 1021 (ch. 86.ib–2b and 1070 (ch. 90.4a–5b).

²³ ibid., p. 1696 (ch. 144.3b); Hummel, Eminent Chinese, 1, 258.

²⁴ K'ang-hsi shih-lu, pp. 1122–23 (ch. 83.24b–25a), 1528 (ch. 114.24a), and 3356–57 (ch. 251.15b–18b).

²⁵ Shih-tsung Hsien-huang-ti [Yung-cheng] shih-lu [Veritable Records of tie Yung-cheng Emperor] (Taipei, 1964), pp. 1131–32Google Scholar (ch. 74.5b–7b.).

²⁶ I-shan, Hsiao, Ch'ing-tai tung-shih [General History of the Ch'ing Dynasty] (Taipei, 1962–63), II, 24Google Scholar.

²⁷ Ch'ing-shih [History of the Ch'ing Dynasty] (Taipei, 1961), p. 3889Google Scholar, col. 7.

²⁸ K'ang-hsi reigned from 1661 to 1722 but did not actually control the government until he arrested and imprisoned his chief regent (Oboi) in 1669.

²⁹ Hsiao I-shan, Chʻing-tʻai tʻung-shih, II, 24.

³⁰ Kao-tsung Chʻun-huang-ti [Chʻien-lung] shih-lu [Veritable Records of the Chʻien-lung Emperor] (Taipei, 1964), p. 2734 (ch. 184.7b–8a).

³¹ Ibid., pp. 2734–35 (ch. 184.8a–9a).

³² Hui-ticn shihli, p. 5350 (ch. 23.8b). I have been unable to locate this decree in K'ang-hsi shih-lu. This decision of 1668 must be the one cited by Ch'ien Mu, Kuo-shih ta-kang [Outline of Chinese History] (Taipei, 1960), p. 603, as being made after the suppression of the rebellion of the three feudatories.

³³ Hui-ticn shih-li, p. 5351 (ch. 23.10a).

³⁴ Pa-chʻi tʻung-chih [General History of the Eight Banner System] (1799 edition), 339.1a.

³⁵ Chʻing-shih, pp. 2846–3288 (ch. 189–209).

³⁶ Taipei, 1961 (a reprint of the original 1931 edition). Appendices to Yen's tu-fu tables arranged all Chʻing governors-general and governors (if not listed as a governor-general) according to their politico-ethnic affiliation. These lists formed the basis of the dynastic totals of tu-fu affiliation given in Kuang-tʻan, Pʻan, “Chin-tai Su-chou ti jen-tsʻai” [Soochow as an Aristogenic Center], She-hui K'o-hsuch, 1 (1935), 70–71Google Scholar. Pan's figures, in turn, were cited by Wright, Mary C., The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: the Tung-chih Restoration, 1862–74, 2nd printing with additional notes (Stanford, 1962), p. 55, note kGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Ch. 339–340. I am indebted to Jonathan Spence for first calling my attention to the correlation between Fengtien registration and banner affiliation of prominent Chʻing officials. Prof. Spence's, own findings on this problem are found in his book, Tsʻao Yin and the Kʻang-hsi Emperor (New Haven, 1966), pp. 71–72, n. 119Google Scholar. A similar correlation between Liaotung registration and banner affiliation can also be hypothesized for the same reasons. A quick glance at the Sheng-ching tʻung-chih list of “men of distinction” (jen-wu) yields innumerable examples of Chinese bannermen tu-fu identified as “Liaotung jen” (Taipei, 1965 reprint of 1736 edition, ch. 34). Even a few men with registrations in central provinces have turned out to be bannermen. To cite one case, Shih Wei-han of the Chinese bordered yellow banner is listed as a Shanghai native in Chʻing-shih, p. 3951, col. 9, in Kuo-chʻao chʻi-hsien lei-cheng [Classified Biographies of Famous Chʻing Men], comp. Li Huan (Hunan, 1884–90), 154.33a, and in the gazetteers of Fukien, Chekiang, and Shantung. None of those works mention his banner affiliation.

³⁸ There are at least 27 tu-fu who are not listed in Pa-chʻi tʻung-chih when the evidence of other sources clearly indicates they were bannermen. The most notable omissions were Hung Chʻeng-chʻou and Chang Kuang-ssu. Some of these omissions occur in the 1790's when the editors were compiling the banner history, and they may not have had completely up-to-date records on bannermen serving as officials. The compilers of Pa-chʻi tʻung-chih have also confused the two governors of Chihli named Yü Chʻeng-Iung (widi identical characters). The earlier governor (1680–81) was listed as a Chinese bordered red bannerman although Hummel, “Eminent Chinese, II, 937, Ch'ing-shih, p. 3968, col. 1, and Chʻing-shih lieh-chuan [Biographies for Compiling a Chʻing History] (Taipei, 1962), 8.20a, all give his registration as Shansi. The second governor (1686–90 and again in 1698) is not to be found in Pa-chʻi tung-chih, although both Chʻing-shih, p. 3985, col. 0, and Chʻing-shih lieh-chuan, 8.43a, state that he was a Chinese bordered yellow bannerman (Hummel, Eminent Chinese, II, 938, says bordered red).

³⁹ Chʻing-chi chung-yao chih-kuan nien-piao (Peking, 1959)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ The collections I consulted were Hummel, Eminent Chinese, Kuo-chʻao chʻi-hsien lei-cheng, Chʻing-shih lieh-chuan, Chʻing-shih, and local gazetteers.

⁴¹ There is still a chance for error in identifying the ethnic origin of bannermen, because some Chinese were enlisted in Manchu banners and adopted Manchu names. In addition, some Manchus adopted typically Chinese names. Kao Pin and his nephew Kao Chin were two notable examples of Chinese who were enrolled in Manchu banners (Hummel, Eminent Chinese, I, 411–12). In such cases, I have counted them as Chinese bannermen.

⁴² The total number of tu-fu (1301) in Table 1 does not match the added totals of tsung-tu (554) and hsün-fu (1122) because 375 (or two-thirds) of the tsung-tu had previously served as hsün-fu. Such officials serving in both posts during their careers were counted only once in calculating tu-fu. I have included in my calculations all tsung-tu and hsün-fu, even if they served for brief periods only. Acting service, however, was not counted.

⁴³ The importance of Chinese bannermen in the early Chʻing period has also been noted by Jonathan Spence (Tsʻao Yin, p. 4 and n. 11). We both reached this conclusion independently.

⁴⁴ I have subdivided the Chʻing dynasty into 16 periods as follows: (1) Shun-chih, 1644–61; (2) Early K–ang-hsi, 1662–83; (3) Middle K–ang-hsi, 1684–1702; (4) Late Kʻang-hsi, 1703–22; (5) Yung-cheng, 1723–35; (6) Early Chʻien-lung, 1736–55; (7) Middle Chʻien-lung, 1756–75; (8) Late Chʻienlung, 1776–95; (9) Chia-ching, 1796–1820; (10) Early Tao-kuang, 1820–38; (11) Late Tao-kuang, 1839–60; (12) Hsien-feng, 1851–61; (13) Tung-chih, 1862–74; (14) Early Kuang-hsü, 1875–84; (15) Middle Kuang-hsü, 1885–1900; (16) Late Kuang-hsü and Hsuan-tʻung, 1901–11.

Because of their length, the reigns of Kʻang-hsi and Chʻien-lung are each broken down into three even segments; 1683 is used to end Kʻang-hsiʻs early period because the final Manchu conquest of China (the subjugation of Taiwan) came at that time. The Opium War is used to divide the Tao-kuang period. The last four decades of the dynasty are broken down into smaller segments than usual in order to detect any significant shifts in tu-ju composition as China faced increasingly urgent foreign and domestic problems.

⁴⁵ Ho, “Significance of the Chʻing period,” pp. 191–93.

⁴⁶ The situation in Anhwei was somewhat comparable to that in Hunan: most Anhwei natives who became tu-ju served in the post-Taiping period, but not to the same extent as Hunanese.

⁴⁷ These rankings are based on figures published by Ho, Ping-ti in The Ladder of Success in Imperial China (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 228Google Scholar (Table 28). I have disregarded the figures for bannermen and separated the figures for Shensi and Kansu in determining provincial rankings and percentages.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 229 (Table 29) and 233–37.

⁴⁹ A comparable difference in tenure according to ethnic affiliation also existed in local posts in the early Chʻing period, if Soochow can be taken as a representative case. During the entire Kʻang-his period, bannermen served an average of 4.3 years as prefect and 3 years as district magistrate, whereas Han Chinese only averaged 2.7 years in each post (Spcnce, TʻYao Yin, p. 74).