Chapter 5 Lifanyuan and Libu in the Qing Tribute System

Chia Ning

The Lifanyuan and Libu were the two major tribute-managing institutions of the Qing court. Their administration greatly helped to define and uphold the Qing world order through ritual-centred official routines. In this chapter attention is given to the institutional side of the Qing tribute system, with particular reference to the distinct as well as cooperative functions of the Lifanyuan and Libu. In Chinese history, the ‘Tribute’ (Chaogong) literally means ‘to come to the court to present tribute’. The tribute system required a ritual performance by the presenters in accordance with the ideology of the Chinese Middle Kingdom. At the upper end of the ritual procedure was the grand ceremony at the court where tribute envoys on behalf of their own rulers (and occasion- ally those rulers themselves) submitted their local riches to the who, in return, bestowed them, i.e. the tribute countries, with material rewards often many times higher in value. The political relationship was built around the symbolic ritual encounter between the superior receiver and inferior pre- senters. With regard to ’s most intimate tribute countries in East Asia— , Annam (), and Liuqiu (Ryukyu)—the emperor bestowed their kings either at the court ritual or by sending his envoys to do so. Regarding the Mongols, Tibetans, and Turkic speaking peoples in China’s Inner Asian fron- tiers, the emperor heavily relied on tribute in order to regulate and control the relationship. Receiving tribute even from many other countries in which the rulers were neither obliged nor entitled by the Chinese court was also per- ceived as an important political gain. The ritual performance of tribute duties served as a necessary requirement, besides and below the court level, for the much desired trade inside the capital and the markets along the border. Up to early Qing times, the tribute belonged to the three essential Qing rituals performed in Inner Asia together with the pilgrimage to the emperor (Chaojin) and the imperial hunt (Weilie).1 Like in pre-Qing times, the tribute administra- tion covered three core elements: the court ritual, the entitlement of political

1 Chia Ning, “The Li-fan Yuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in the Early Qing (1644–1795),” Late Imperial China 14,1 (1993).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004335004_007 Lifanyuan And Libu In The Qing Tribute System 145 authority over the most important tribute countries, and the court-regulated commerce. Since its establishment in the Sui-Tang period, the Libu had its Bureau of Receiving Ritual Guests (Zhuke qinglisi) acting as the sole tribute institution until the end of the Ming dynasty. The Lifanyuan represented the other new important tribute institution, invented by the Qing court, that changed China’s tribute system remarkably. Among the numerous Qing tribute studies, special- ized research on these two tribute-managing institutions has largely remained absent from the agenda. Mark Mancall’s description of the Lifanyuan’s sphere of responsibilities in the ‘northwest crescent’ of Inner Asia vs. the Libu’s in the ‘south-eastern crescent’ of East Asia yet with shared ritual procedures2 and Chen Shangsheng’s comments that this institutional separation reflected the Qing administrative differentiation of internal non-Chinese polities (Fanbu) from external subordinate nations (Shuguo)3 have insightfully touched on the subject. However, a focused exploration is something still needed. An inquiry into both the Libu and Lifanyuan raises two questions: how were the pre-Qing and the Qing tribute systems interrelated and, more importantly, how did the Qing tribute system work during its most effective stage until the end of the 18th century?4

1 From Pre-Qing to Qing Tribute: Recent Discussions

Like in other empires, configuring contacts with neighbouring peoples or dis- tant powers was instrumental to delimiting and safeguarding China’s imperial domain and her influence beyond her border. Thus, originating in the cul- tural views of the Western Zhou dynasty, the tribute system in China pursued such governmental functions practically since the Han dynasty.5 Bruce Loyd

2 Mark Mancall, “The Ch’ing Tribute System: An Interpretive Essay,” in The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations, ed. John King Fairbank (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 73–5. 3 Chen Shangsheng, “Shilun Qingchao qianqi fengguong tixi de jiben tezheng,” Qingshi yanjiu 2 (2010): 91–2. 4 John Wills has pointed out that “the basic policies of the Qing state toward maritime Europeans still seemed reasonably functional and successful” around 1800. This holds true for the tributaries in the Qing world as well. See John E. Wills, Jr., “Introduction,” in China and Maritime Europe, 1500–1800: Trade, Settlement, Diplomacy, and Missions, ed. John E. Wills, Jr. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 1. 5 Fu Baichen, Zhongchao lidai chaogong zhidu yanjiu (Changchun: Jilin remin chubanshe, 2008), 2–3.