A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology (review)

A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. By Pamela Kyle Crossley (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2000) 403 pp. $45.00

Crossley approaches her subject with a thorough knowledge of the Manchu and Chinese sources of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911). In A Translucent Mirror, she challenges old shibboleths about the Qing imperial ideology that go back to the work of Fairbank and his colleagues in the Cambridge History of China volumes of the 1970s.¹

The early Qing emperors, Crossley argues, reformulated the imperial authority for the Qing state with an emphasis on loyalty and empire. This conception of authoritarian rule still has a resonance in China today. During the mid-eighteenth century, the Qianlong emperor ruled in much less Confucian and more universalist way than previously thought. Early Manchu rulers, as they were conquering China, rewrote lineage history to bolster legitimacy, stressing their ethnic identity. A new imperial ideological rationale and historical myth, the heart of which was Manchu identity, was under construction.

Painstakingly and convincingly, Crossley shows how Manchu rulers invented a history and genealogy that emphasized empire and loyalty rather than Confucian values. The Manchus were not becoming more Chinese or simply adopting the imperial ideology of the Ming dynasty, as Fairbank and others have argued. The invention of a Manchu script illustrated the originality and commitment of the Manchu rulers to creating their own hybrid, in this case from Mongolian and Chinese sources. Likewise, Manchu Shaman religious practices were woven into the ceremonies sanctifying the new imperial myth.

In short, this book is a tour de force in the sweep and originality of its argument and the depth of its research. Crossley's long introductory essay employs a comparative political-philosophy perspective, taking special interest in the Ottoman Empire and referring often to Edmund Burke and others. Unfortunately, a turgid writing style and arrogance of tone limits this book's accessibility. In the notes, Crossley depreciates the work of almost every other scholar who has written on her subject—save Rawski.²

The book also suffers from major lost opportunities for bringing the material and arguments to life. One fascinating episode to which Crossley devotes a number of pages involved the reaction of emperors Qianlong and Yongzheng to the writings of Zeng Jing, a relatively obscure scholar, who had the temerity at the end of the eighteenth century to challenge the ideological legitimacy of Manchu rule. The confrontation is dramatic (Zeng Jing was sentenced to death by slicing) and a fascinating window into the minds of Qing rulers. Crossley's studied and highly qualified account of the affair pales in comparison to the recent, beautifully written, and equally sophisticated account by Jonathan Spence, her mentor (Treason by the Book [New York, 2001]). Both books should be read in tandem.