Introduction

The interaction between governors and the governed is crucial for effective governance, highlighting the critical role of language-driven symbolic representations. Kaisa Koskinen underscores this by stating that “in multilingual contexts, all linguistically grounded symbolic forms contain translational aspects” (2014, p. 483). This belief is further illustrated by China’s historical tradition of “governance by translation,” as discussed by Ren (2022, p. 40), which underscores the intrinsic connection between state governance and translation.

State governance, to some extent, is “a discursive practice” (Koskinen, 2014, p. 483) heavily reliant on the generation, dissemination, and reception of governance-oriented texts. Actors within state governance typically manifest their authority through the production of institutional documents such as laws, regulations, and decrees to advance their governance objectives. Consequently, state governance substantially depends on “text-based documentation” (Koskinen, 2014, p. 483). This reliance on textual artifacts highlights the concept of “document politics” 文件政治 (Zhou and Sui, 2021, p. 247), a concept deeply embedded in China’s governance traditions since ancient times. The term “document” 文件 has been utilized since the nineteenth century (1840-1849), while in ancient China, it was referred to as “wenshu” 文書 or “gongwen” 公文. Dating back to the Han (202 B.C.–220 A.D.) dynasty, “governing the state by documents” 以文书御天下 (Wang, 2004, p. 121) has remained a central tenet of Chinese state governance, serving as an active and efficient strategy for addressing overarching governance challenges across epochs.

Throughout its extensive history, China has experienced the governance of two distinct categories of dynasties: those governed by Han Chinese, such as the above-mentioned Qin dynasty (221 B.C.–207 B.C.) and Han dynasty (202 B.C.–220 A.D.), and those led by non-Han Chinese, such as Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) and Qing dynasty (1644–1911; Gao and Moratto, 2024, p. 171). Since the Spring and Autumn Annals 春秋時期 (770 B.C.–476 B.C.), successive Han dynasties have embraced “the Great Unity” (Dayitong大一統) as a central governance philosophy (Zang and Dun, 2024, p. 108). The word “Great”(Da 大) in “the Great Unity” signifies a respect for the extensive territory, implying that unification itself is great (Liu, 2021). Once the geographical space has been maximized, the next goal is to pursue the unification of all ethnic groups (Wu, 2022, p. 135).

In 221 B.C., Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇 259 B.C.–210 B.C.), the first emperor of China, consolidated the remaining six states and founded China’s first unified dynasty. Confronted with the challenge of governing a vast territory populated by diverse cultures and languages, he accepted a proposal to standardize the written script across China to fulfill the ambition of the Great Unity. This proposal, known as “Shutongwen” (書同文“Writing the Same Script”), was advanced by a distinguished calligrapher and politician Li Si (李斯 284 B.C.–208 B.C.; Gao and Moratto, 2024, p. 174). Therefore, one can read in the Records of the Historian 史記 that in 221 B.C., all weights and measures were standardized, all carriages had gauges of the same size, and the script was also standardized (Sima, 2008, pp. 24–25). Since then, dynasties ruled by the Han Chinese implemented a policy of monolingualism under the principle of “Writing the Same Script” (Gao and Moratto, 2024, p. 175).

In contrast, the non-Han dynasties adopted a distinct linguistic strategy, characterized by multilingualism. In the monolingual context, document politics could be effectively conducted in Chinese, eliminating the need for translation. However, the situation differs markedly in multilingual environments, where governance principles rooted in official documents necessitate the inclusion of translation. In such contexts, the governance mode, heavily reliant on the production and translation of institutional texts, exemplifies “translation governmentality” 翻譯治理術, a term coined by Chinese scholars. This concept refers to the implementation of translation decisions driven by governance needs through various institutions (such as law, education, and publishing) and translation practices (Gao and Ren, 2021, p. 31).

In the context of China’s evolution into a multi-ethnic unified state, the Qin dynasty (221 B.C.–207 B.C.) and Han dynasty (202 B.C.–220 A.D.) represent the foundational stages, the Sui (581–618) dynasty and Tang dynasty (618–907) mark the developmental stages, and the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), Ming dynasty (1368–1644), and Qing dynasty (1644–1911) signify the final establishment stages (Zhu, 2017, p. 139). Notably, the Qing dynasty, the last unified dynasty established by the Manchus in 1644, warrants special attention. During this period, China’s modern boundaries were established, and “the Great Unity” thus fully realized (Zhu, 2017, p. 139). This achievement is notable not only for the Qing dynasty’s role in reunifying China but also for its integration of all border regions and ethnic groups into the Chinese territorial and national framework (Zhu, 2017, p. 139).

The governance structure of the Qing dynasty displayed a dual nature: it maintained the distinct identity of the Manchus and extended similar recognition to other border ethnic minorities, such as the Mongols, Tibetans, and Hui, by implementing tailored governance policies in regions like Mongolia, XizangFootnote 1, and Xinjiang. Simultaneously, the Qing rulers incorporated aspects of the Han Chinese administrative system and culture to reshape and centralize their authority (Zhu, 2017, p. 147). Within this governance framework, the Qing governors promoted the Manchu language as the national language while also recognizing Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uyghur as official languages, making multilingual translation an essential tool for state administration (Deng, 2023, pp. 58–59). Similar to the earlier Han dynasties, official documents played a crucial role in Qing governance. However, a notable difference was the Qing rulers’ belief that “translation is the priority task of the Manchus” 翻譯為滿洲本業 (The First Historical Archives of China, 2000, p. 171). This belief elevated the translation of official documents to be a primary method of governance.

The translation of official documents during the Qing dynasty has attracted scholarly attention, with existing studies falling into three main categories. Firstly, some scholars have investigated the historical practices of translating Manchu-Tibetan documents, including the appointing and training of translators (Jagou, 2013; Ma, 2016; Shi, 2018a, 2018b). Another focus area is the translation of diplomatic documents (Wang, 2016; Ding, 2018). The third category addresses either the translation of official documents (Yeh, 2017; Gao and Ren, 2021; Gao and Moratto, 2024) or the official positions responsible for such translation tasks (Li, 1994; Zhao, 2006; Song, 2019; Porter, 2019; Deng, 2021; Gao et al., 2023). Although these studies have illuminated the significance of official document translation and the roles of translation officials in Qing governance, they have been fragmentary, lacking a comprehensive overview of official document translation within the framework of “governance by translation.” Moreover, much of the existing research has been historiographical, predominantly concentrating on historical records and summaries, without undertaking a systematic analysis of the regime underlying official documents translation during the Qing dynasty. In response to these gaps, this study seeks to analyze the governance orientations of official document translation during the Qing period and examine how such translation was strategically employed as an effective practice in governing a multi-ethnic and multilingual state.

Theoretical framework and methodology

Based on Meylaerts’ model of translational options in multilingual governance, Koskinen (2014) attempted to set forth a unified model to analyze how translation is or has been employed in various contexts of governance. She asserts that employing translation as a tool for “directing the conduct of the governed” within multilingual governance (Koskinen, 2014, p. 481) necessitates an initial decision on the governing language and the extent to which translation will be institutionalized (Koskinen, 2014, p. 483). This process inherently entails making decisions about language and translation policies. Koskinen emphasizes that merely outlining what, where, and when to translate constitutes only a preliminary analysis of governance by translation. To gain a deeper understanding, one must investigate the organized regimes of translation practices. To this end, she proposes a framework comprising four regimes of textual and translation practices relevant to governance: maintenance, regulation, implementation, and image-building (Koskinen, 2014, p. 488). This tentative schematic model is a welcome step forward, but it may warrant further elaboration and expansion.

In his book on governmentality, Dean (2010, p. 28) defines governing as “an activity that requires craft, imagination, shrewd fashioning, the use of tacit skills and practical know-how, the employment of intuition, and so on.” Therefore, a study of government is to investigate “the organized practices” or “regimes of government” (Dean, 2010, p. 28). Numerous elements should be analyzed so as to discover such regimes of government. According to Dean, “an analysis of government, then, is concerned with the means of calculation, both qualitative and quantitative, the type of governing authority or agency, the forms of knowledge, techniques and other means employed, the entity to be governed and how it is conceived, the ends sought and the outcomes and consequences” (Dean, 2010, p. 18).

This analytical framework provided by Dean may also be applied to the analysis of translation governmentality. Based on Dean’s analytical framework and the specific context of translation practices, Gao and Ren (2021) have proposed several steps to understand the intertwining of translation and governance. First, it is crucial to identify the types of authorities or agencies that use translation as a governing technique and to explore the language and translation policies they employ. To implement any translation policy, translation agencies must first be established. If such agencies do not exist, translators should be embedded within different governing bodies. Consequently, the next step is to investigate the translation agencies and the role of translators within various governing institutions. After establishing these translation agencies, it is necessary to institutionalize regimes of textual and translation practices. Therefore, the final step is to explore these regimes of textual and translation practices (see Gao and Ren, 2021, p. 35).

In this study, we will start by analyzing the governing authorities of the Qing dynasty, comparing them with those of other Han dynasties, and exploring their reasons for using official document translation as a governance technique. During this process, the associated language and translation policies will be investigated to better understand the crucial role that these policies play in governing a multi-ethnic state. Next, we will examine how the Qing authorities implemented these translation policies through the establishment of translation agencies, the appointment of translation officials, and the adoption of various translation practices so as to provide an in-depth analysis of how these governance philosophies and objectives were effectively put into practice and the specific outcomes they produced. Ultimately, our goal is to offer guidance for future policymakers on making decisions regarding official document translation in the context of multilingual state governance.

For this study, we will employ documentary analysis as a fundamental method to understand the historical contexts of official document translation, to interpret the motivations behind this kind of textual translation, and to reconstruct the organized regimes of translation practices. The historical sources used in this process will primarily be drawn from historical records, including the Veritable Records of Qing Dynasty RulersFootnote 2 清實錄, the Collected Statutes of the Qing DynastyFootnote 3清會典, the Imperial Regulations and Precedents of the Board of Ministry for the Regulations of the FrontierFootnote 4 欽定理藩院則例, the History Compiled on Imperial CommandFootnote 5 欽定皇朝文献通考, the Imperial Comprehensive TreatisesFootnote 6 欽定皇朝通志, and the Provisional History of the Qing DynastyFootnote 7 清史稿. These historical sources have been selected as primary documents because they were compiled and published under imperial or governmental orders, with some serving as archival records of imperial edicts. Engaging with these official historical records ensures the reliability and validity of our findings, as they provide the primary evidence regarding language and translation policies and the organized regimes of translation practices for official documents during the Qing dynasty. By systematically analyzing these materials, the study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of governing by official document translation in the Qing dynasty.

Governance objectives of the official document translation policies

Throughout its five-thousand-year history as a multi-ethnic state, China has enacted various language and translation policies, collectively known as “tongwen” (Gao and Moratto, 2024, p. 174). The decree of Shutongwen or “Writing the Same Script,” issued by the first Chinese emperor in 221 B. C., mandated the use of a uniform writing system. This policy aimed at achieving the ambition of the Great Unity but also established Chinese as the sole official language throughout the dynasties established by the Han Chinese. This institutional monolingualism deprived minority ethnic groups of their right to translate official documents into their native languages. However, with the advent of non-Han dynasties, such as the Qing dynasty, the policy of exclusive monolingualism was discontinued. Despite institutionalizing the Manchu language as the official national language, the Qing rulers pursued a policy of “governing according to local customs” 因俗而治 (Cheng, 2015, p. 295). This approach entailed the comprehension and acceptance of official edicts and imperial decrees in the respective native languages of the governed populations. Within this policy framework, “without translating the official documents, the transmission of government decrees and the operation of administrative agencies would have been impossible” (Gao and Moratto, 2024, p. 179). Therefore, the Qing authorities recognized the pivotal significance of translating official documents for maintaining the core institutional framework of the state, facilitating the functioning of the state bureaucracy, and establishing the legitimacy of state governance. In this section, we will explore each of them in detail.

Maintaining the core institutional framework of the State

Since the Qin dynasty (221 B.C.–207 B.C.), China has evolved into a vast unified country with a centralized monarchical system serving as its core institutional structure. Within this “highly abstract institutional framework,” the hierarchical system and administrative divisions had materialized as concrete operational modes and practical mechanisms for actualizing imperial and central authority (Zhou and Sui, 2021, p. 247). Nonetheless, the realities of a vast territory, dense population, and diverse ethnic groups had posed governance challenges, particularly regarding the unified and effective implementation of governmental directives.

To address this challenge, Emperor Qin Shi Huang (秦始皇 259 B.C.–210 B.C.) introduced the policy of “Writing the Same Script.” With the implementation of the policy, a system of official documents was gradually established, serving as “a more tangible instrument of governance grounded in the hierarchical system” (Zhou and Sui, 2021, p. 247). Under the absolute monarchy, most ancient Chinese governments adhered to a hierarchical structure, with the emperor positioned at the apex of the power hierarchy. The emperor’s imperial documents, such as edicts 制 and decrees 詔Footnote 8, constituted the primary means through which the imperial centralized power was maintained. By controlling imperial documents, the feudal monarchs not only reinforced their position at the pinnacle of power but also exerted tight control over the uppermost levels of state governance.

Under the centralized governance model, China’s vast territory was organized into central and local spheres. The commandery-county system further delineated regions beyond the direct control of the central authority. This hierarchical framework complicated communication and coordination between the central administration and local entities, presenting a significant governance challenge. The official document system emerged as a pivotal mechanism facilitating connectivity between central and local governments, seamlessly integrated within the centralized structure and essential to the state governance apparatus (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 121).

In the official documents process, the central government played a pivotal role and held decision-making authority, effectively controlling power dynamics by approving upward-bound documents and enforcing directives through downward-bound documents (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 121). In essence, the centralized system ensures the unity of the state, while documentary administration acts as a cornerstone in maintaining effective governance (Zhou and Sui, 2021, p. 248).

No other dynasty in the history of imperial China exercised more effective control over its territory than the Qing dynasty (Ma, 2016). China’s territories during that period grew significantly, encompassing a vast stretch from the Sea of Okhotsk and the Sakhalin Island in the east, to Lake Balkhash and the Pamir Plateau in the west, and from the Sayanling, the Ergun River and the Wailing Mountains in the north, to the Nanhai Zhudao in the south (Ma, 2021, pp. 1–2). Faced with such vast boundaries and a diverse array of borderlands (Cheng, 2015, p. 81), the Qing government responded by implementing the system of Branch Secretariat. This system organized local administrative divisions into three hierarchical levels: provinces, prefectures, and counties (Fu et al., 2017, p. 24). According to the Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty, Era of Jiaqing 欽定大清會典·嘉慶朝, the territorial extent of Qing China comprised 25 provincial-level administrative districts. These districts were categorized into three major regions: the three eastern provincesFootnote 9東三省, the eighteen provincesFootnote 10十八省, and the feudatory regionFootnote 11 藩部 (Tojin et al., 1991a, pp. 433–544; Fu et al., 2017, p. 28).

In addition to managing its vast territory, the Qing dynasty faced the complex challenge of governing an exceptionally diverse ethnic landscape, comprising over 50 distinct ethnic groups (Yang, 1991, p.1). Similar to the rulers of the Han dynasties, the Qing rulers pursued a policy of “tongwen zhi zhi” 同文之治. However, they upheld the notion that “while there are myriad languages, the laws of the universe remain unchanged” 天下之語萬殊, 天下之理則一 (Qianlong, 1984, p. 7). The concept of “tongwen” in the Qing dynasty did not advocate for absolute language homogenization, but rather emphasized the coexistence of multiple ethnic groups and cultures characterized by multilingualism within the same framework of governance, all adhering to Qing education and culture (Ma and Borjigidai, 2017, p. 82). Despite Manchu being the national language, the Qing government did not enforce monolingualism as practiced in the Han dynasties. Instead, it adopted a policy of multilingualism, with Manchu, Mongolian, and Chinese serving as the main official languages. In regions corresponding to what is now Xizang and Xinjiang, Tibetan and Uyghur were also recognized as official languages. Therefore, departing from the approaches of previous Han dynasties, the Qing administration embraced a policy of “coexistence of different languages with shared meanings” (Deng, 2021, p. 165).

Under these policies, ethnic groups were granted autonomy to use their native languages, marking a departure from previous monolingual practices. The adoption of a multilingual framework required the systematic translation of governmental decrees to facilitate their dissemination. Consequently, the translation of official documents assumed a critical role in sustaining the monarchical and centralized governance structure. Without it, governmental bodies at all levels would struggle to establish an institutional framework characterized by “robust scalability and depth” (Liu and Huang, 2020, pp. 119–120).

Ensuring the functionality of the state bureaucracy

The traditional Chinese government upheld a bureaucratic political structure to implement the centralized monarchical system, and this organizational model inherently depended on official documents (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 122). Official documents served as institutional instruments that facilitated the management of state administrative affairs and contributed to the operational efficiency of the state governance system through a structured set of processes, including drafting, reviewing, issuing, circulating, and filing (Zhou and Sui, 2021, pp. 247–248). The transmission and reception of official documents “reinforced the hierarchical system’s absorptive nature” and compensated for “its inherent lack of interactive capabilities,” as well as facilitated “orderly interactions between the system and individuals” (Zhou and Sui, 2021, pp. 247–248). Moreover, in the absence of the structure provided by official documents, government bureaucrats would lack the means to assert their influence, let alone emerge as authoritative figures within the political landscape (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 120). Official documents played a crucial role in establishing the authority of government bureaucrats, both collectively and individually, as representatives of political power. Consequently, the traditional Chinese government operated as a “documentary government” and employed “documentary administration” (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 119).

Despite the Qing dynasty being of Manchu origin, since the reign of Huang Taiji (皇太極1592-1643), formerly referred to as Abahai in Western literature and father of the Shunzhi Emperor, its governmental structure and institutions were largely modeled on the Ming system 明制, leading to the inheritance of most official systems from the Ming era. This continuity attracted individuals from various backgrounds, including descendants of Ming officials and generals, Han Confucians, and even Mongols, to participate in the Qing regime (Xu, 2009, p. 17). However, unlike the Han dynasties, the Qing official system exhibited significant diversity (Zhang, 1985, p. 22), with officials hailing from Manchu, Mongolian, and Han backgrounds dominating the hierarchy. Moreover, attention was given to harnessing talents from Hui, Tibetan, and Korean ethnic groups (Li, 2018, p. 28). According to Du (2013, p. 7), the central government was composed of individuals from both the Manchu and Han Chinese ethnic groups, with representation from these groups extending across various administrative tiers, encompassing provinces, prefectures, subprefectures, departments, and districts. In local positions, such as minor offices within departments and districts, Han Chinese individuals predominantly occupied these roles; conversely, in ethnic border areas, officials were primarily appointed from the Manchurian banners (Du, 2013, p. 7).

The diversified composition of the official system presented challenges in communication between the emperor and officials, as well as among officials themselves. Similar to the Han dynasties, official documents played a crucial role as an indispensable form and channel of communication within the Qing government bureaucracy. However, the multi-ethnic composition of bureaucratic groups necessitated communication beyond the confines of a single language. Consequently, the translation of official documents between Manchu and Chinese, as well as between Manchu and Mongolian, emerged as an indispensable means of information exchange within the Qing bureaucracy.

Constructing the legitimacy of state governance

The effectiveness of state governance primarily rests on establishing the legitimacy and rationality of the governing body. To achieve and uphold governance legitimacy, the governing entity must draft “foundational documents” to ensure “the day-to-day administration” (Koskinen, 2014, p. 488). Throughout the history of ancient China, the legitimacy of successive dynastic rulers required rigorous verification. Official documents were the primary means of conveying the values of the state governance body and embodied the concepts, systems, policies, and methodologies of governance, thereby playing a crucial role in legitimizing power.

Procedural political phrases within official documents, such as “by the grace of heaven” 奉天承運, reflect a strong belief in the divine authorization of the monarch. Successive rulers had also promoted the ideology of the “trinity of the King, the Saint, and the Dao” 王、聖、道三位一體 through official documents (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 120). As a result, these documents effectively convey the sanctity of the emperor, shaping the core values of state governance and serving as the supreme and ultimate basis for the monarch’s legitimacy (Liu and Huang, 2020, p.120). In ancient China, the emperor’s will, an equivalence of the will of the State, was embodied by official documents, which the emperor relied upon to address state affairs and govern the nation (Wan, 2010, p. 1). Without official documents, the concepts and will of state governance could not be effectively expressed or perceived.

In contrast to the Han dynasties, the Qing dynasty was established by the Manchus, a minority group vastly outnumbered by the Han majority. This minority rule over the majority posed a significant challenge to the Manchu ruling authorities (Li, 2018, p. 25), particularly in terms of shaping legitimacy and orthodoxy. As previously mentioned, unlike the monolingualism prevalent in the Han dynasties, the Qing dynasty embraced multilingualism as a governing principle. Although the Manchu language served as the national language, its usage was limited, with Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Uyghur also holding significant status as official languages.

Given the diverse linguistic landscape, the Manchu rulers recognized that solely relying on monolingual official documents, as practiced by the Han dynasties, would not suffice to secure submission from the Han and other ethnic groups constituting the majority of the population. Therefore, the translation of official documents emerged as a crucial tool for establishing the legitimacy and rationality of the Qing political order, ultimately enhancing governability.

To sum up, three key insights emerge from the role of translation in Qing governance. (1) Centralization support: To effectively uphold the centralization of monarchical autocracy as the nation’s foundational framework, translating official documents was crucial. It facilitated orderly communication and exchange between the Qing dynasty’s supreme ruler and local individuals, between the central government and local societal institutions, and among various governmental entities. (2) Information circulation: The translation of official documents played a vital role in ensuring the smooth and comprehensive flow of governmental information. It strengthened communication and exchanges between the emperor and bureaucrats, as well as among bureaucrats themselves, thus providing a solid foundation for the national bureaucracy. (3) Ideological construction: Through the translation of official documents, the Qing rulers aimed to construct an ideology that emphasized the divine authorization of the Manchu Emperor’s monarchical power, framing it within the triad of King, Saint, and Dao (Liu and Huang, 2020, p. 120). This ideological framework served to legitimize and rationalize Manchu rule over the entire state.

Translation as an effort to achieve the governance objectives

Without a well-organized translation system, achieving the aforementioned governance objectives would have been impossible. To effectively address the demands of state governance, the Qing dynasty gradually established a comprehensive regime for translating official documents. This system encompassed the creation of translation agencies, the appointment of translation officials, and the adoption of various translation modes. Understanding the governance orientations of official document translation requires examining the development of this translation regime within the broader context of the historical evolution of state governance and evaluating its effectiveness through the core mechanisms of state administration. In this section, we will analyze each aspect based on the historical resources referenced in the framework and methodology section.

The establishment of multiple official document translation agencies

In the Qing dynasty, the translation of official documents was part of the “state translation program,” which refers to “translation that a state initiates and sponsors in its name for strategic and self-beneficial goals” (Ren and Gao, 2015, p. 93). To ensure the quality and efficiency of official documents translation, ad hoc translation agencies were established by the State to handle various types of official documents.

Agencies for translating routine memorials. In 1658, the fifteenth year of the Shunzhi Emperor’s reign (順治 r.1644–1661), the Grand Secretariat 內閣 was established in accordance with the Ming system, tasked with overseeing the announcement of imperial edicts and managing various political affairs (Isangga et al., 1992, p. 25). As a pivotal political institution, one of the Grand Secretariat’s responsibilities was the translation of routine memorials 本章 submitted by various governmental agencies. Within this institution, twelve ad hoc divisions existed, including the Chinese Documents Section 漢本房, the Manchu Documents Section 滿本房, and the Mongolian Documents Section 蒙古本房, each designated for the translation of documents in their respective languages.

As delineated in the Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty, Era of Jiaqing 欽定大清會典·嘉慶朝, the Chinese Documents Section of the Grand Secretariat bore the responsibility of receiving and dispatching routine memorials submitted by local officials, prioritizing them based on their urgency; in cases where routine memorials were exclusively drafted in Chinese without a Manchu translation, they were rendered into Manchu relying on provided summaries; subsequently, these translated documents underwent transcription by the Manchu Documents Section before being transmitted to the Document Registry 票簽處, where officials distributed them according to their urgency (Tojin et al., 1991a, p. 70). The Manchu Documents Section was charged with the review and transcription of Manchu documents (Tojin et al., 1991a, pp. 68–69). In the Mongolian Documents Section, the primary duty was the translation of reports or memorials from frontier peoples into Manchu (Tojin et al., 1991a, p. 71).

Agencies for translating imperial edicts. In addition to overseeing routine memorials, the Grand Secretariat was responsible for coordinating the translation of imperial edicts. During the reigns of the Shunzhi Emperor (順治 r.1644–1661) and Kangxi Emperor (康熙, r.1661–1722), translation officials from various government agencies handled the translation of imperial edicts. However, according to records from the Imperially Authorized Collected Statutes of the Great Qing Dynasty: Precedents and Regulations 钦定大清会典则例, in 1726, the responsibility for translating imperial edicts was transferred to the Grand Secretariat (Yūntoo, 1983, p. 67). Following the establishment of the Council of State 軍機處 by the Yongzheng Emperor (雍正 r.1723–1735) in 1733, the translation of Manchu imperial edicts was shifted to this new institution, while the Grand Secretariat continued to handle the translation of Chinese imperial edicts. Subsequently, in 1743, the eighth year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (乾隆 r.1736–1795), the Sino-Manchu Translation Office 內翻書房 reviewed Chinese imperial edicts after their initial translation by the Grand Secretariat (Zhao, 1992, p. 26).

In 1757, Fuheng (傅恒 1720–1770), the grand minister of state 軍機大臣, reported that he had appointed six officials, including administrative aide Su Hechen 主事蘇和忱, and the head of general services office Yisan 司務伊三 to supervise translation activities in neighboring offices of the Council of State, specifically the Translation Office of Imperial Proclamations 翻譯上諭房. Fuheng suggested that there was no longer a need to submit Chinese-to-Manchu translations to De Tong 德通, the head of the office of transmission 通政使 for proofreading. Instead, translations from Manchu to Chinese could be handled directly by Su Hechen and other translators at the Council of State (Qinggui et al., 1986, p. 1041). Consequently, the responsibility for translating imperial edicts from Chinese into Manchu transitioned from the Grand Secretariat to the Translation Office of Imperial Proclamations within the Council of State. In 1771, this office was merged into the Sino-Manchu Translation Office, which subsequently managed the translation of imperial edicts until the end of the Qing dynasty (Zhao, 1992, p. 26).

Agencies for translating official documents of ethnic affairs. Acknowledging its ethnically diverse population, Qing rulers placed considerable emphasis on integrating various ethnic groups, particularly the Mongols and Tibetans. The establishment of the Mongol Agency 蒙古衙門 in 1636 underscored the government’s commitment to managing relations with Mongol allies. However, by 1638, this pivotal institution was succeeded by Lifanyuan 理藩院 or Board of Ministry for the Regulations of the FrontierFootnote 12 (Ortai, 1985, p. 550). The rationale behind this transition was documented in the Compiled Record of Laws and Events of the Qing Dynasty: Era of Jiaqing 欽定大清會典事例·嘉慶朝. During the reign of Emperor Taizong, all Mongolian tribes acknowledged imperial authority, prompting the establishment of the Lifanyuan to oversee the affairs of ethnic groups (Tojin et al., 1991b, p. 724). Over time, the Lifanyuan expanded its jurisdiction in line with the territorial expansion of the Qing dynasty. It transformed into a central government institution tasked with supervising the affairs of diverse ethnic groups, encompassing Inner Mongols, Outer Mongols, Chahar, Qinghai, Xizang, Xinjiang, and southwest China (Li, 1988, p. 225). Furthermore, it assumed a role in managing foreign affairs (see Ye and Yuan, 2017; Schorkowitz, 2017).

Within the Lifanyuan, two translation offices were established: the Chinese Archive 漢檔房 and the Mongolian Translation Office 蒙古房. The Chinese Archive, essentially serving as both a translation and archival agency, was responsible for processing all Manchu memorials from the Lifanyuan, translating them into Chinese, and preserving the original Manchu documents (Tojin et al., 1991a, pp. 2332). Similarly, the Mongolian Translation Office was established to manage the translation of Mongolian documents (Tojin et al., 1991a, p. 2508). Moreover, it was entrusted with the translation of Western Mongol “todo bičig” and Tangut (Tibetan) language documents (Chia, 2017, p. 182). The Lifanyuan founded Mongolian Official Schools 蒙古官学, Tanggute Xue (唐古特学 a Tibetan School), and Tuote Xue (托忒学 a Tangutan School), which were dedicated to training translators proficient in Mongolian, Tibetan, and Todo Bičig languages (Zhang, 2012, p. 165). Many graduates from these institutions subsequently engaged in translating official documents into their respective languages.

Agencies for translating official documents of foreign affairs. Similar to preceding dynasties, the Qing dynasty positioned itself as the “heavenly dynasty” 天朝上国 and upheld the tribute system 朝貢體系, primarily engaging in foreign relations with neighboring vassal states. To manage foreign affairs, the Qing dynasty established the Interpreters Institute 會同館 and the Translator Institute 四譯館 in the Ming style, during the first year of the Shunzhi Emperor’s reign (1644) (Zhao, 1977, p. 3283). These institutes were responsible for foreign reception and translation.

The Translator Institute, subordinate to the Hanlin Academy 翰林院, was founded to translate texts related to tributes into Manchu (Zhao, 1977, p. 3284). It comprised eight sections dedicated to various languages, including Persian, Burmese, Dai, Tibetan, Uyghur, Indian, Southeast Asian languages, and Thai (Zhao, 1977, p. 3284). The Interpreters Institute, a component of the Ministry of Rites 禮部, was responsible for receiving foreign envoys (Tojin et al., 1991b, p. 8157) and providing them with essential amenities such as food, clothing, and accommodation.

The overlapping responsibilities of these two institutions, however, resulted in redundancy and inefficiencies among their staff. In response to these challenges, in the thirteenth year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1748), the Translators Institute merged with the Interpreters Institute, leading to the creation of the Interpreters and Translators Institute 會同四譯館. This merger was designed to streamline operations and improve efficiency. Consequently, the eight sections previously managed by the Translator Institute were reorganized into two sections: the Western Section 西域館, tasked with handling Uyghur, Persian, Tibetan, and Indian languages, and the Eastern Section 百夷館, responsible for managing Siamese, Burmese, Dai, and other Southeast Asian languages (Zhao, 1977, p. 3284).

The appointment of specialized translation officials for document translation

Translation agencies rely on skilled and proficient translators. To ensure the efficacy of translation, the Qing dynasty established several specialized and qualified translation official positions. These included dorgi bithesi (中書 translators and scribes in the Grand Secretariat), bithesi (筆帖式 designated specifically for the Eight BannersFootnote 13 八旗), geren giltusi (庶吉士 a scholastic title during the Ming and Qing dynasties), ubaliyambure hafan (翻譯官 officials tasked with translation duties), and tongshi (通事 interpreters) (see Gao et al., 2023). Among these roles, dorgi bithesi and bithesi were primarily responsible for the translation of official documents.

In accordance with the Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty, Era of Kangxi 大清會典·康熙朝, routine memorials from all administrative offices and memorials solely drafted in Chinese or Mongolian by officials were required to undergo either full translation by dorgi bithesi or translation based on the main points (Isangga et al., 1992, p. 37). In Manchu, dorgi bithesi is described as “dorgi yamun i wesimbure bithe be ubaliyambure arara hafasa be,” which translates to “clerical workers responsible for translating and transcribing routine memorials in the Grand Secretariat” (Fuheng, 1983, p. 109). Initially, there were only Manchurian, Mongolian, and Han Chinese dorgi bithesi (Yūntoo et al., 1983, p. 55). These three types of dorgi bithesi were clerical workers in the Manchu Documents Section, the Mongolian Documents Section and the Chinese Documents Section (Yūntoo et al., 1983, p. 55). In the third year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1738), 24 Manchurian aisilambi dorgi bithesi 滿洲貼寫中書(aisilambi means assist) were assigned to the Manchu Documents Section, and 16 were incorporated into the Chinese Documents Section (Ji et al., 1983a, p. 266). This decision arose due to the significant volume of translation work, which overwhelmed the existing dorgi bithesi in both the Manchu and Chinese documents sections (Ji et al., 1983a, p. 265). In 1744, the ninth year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1735–1795), six Mongolian aisilambi dorgi bithesi were assigned to the Grand Secretariat (Tiyeboo et al., 1983, p. 136). This marked a significant expansion in the workforce dedicated to translation duties during the Qianlong Emperor’s rule, with the total number of dorgi bithesi reaching 140. Subsequently, under the reigns of the Jiaqing (嘉慶 r. 1796–1820) and Guangxu (道光 r. 1820-1850), the count increased to 170, nearly doubling compared to the Yongzheng Emperor’s era (Yeh, 2017, pp. 5–6). The notable rise in the number of dorgi bithesi underscores the Qing dynasty government’s heightened emphasis on official document translation.

Bithesi, formerly known as baksi (巴克什 also referred to as bangshi 榜什 or bashi 把什 in Chinese) first appeared in historical records in the third year (1629) of the Tiancong Emperor’s reign (天聰 r. 1627–1643), coinciding with the establishment of the Literary Institute文館. In 1631, the Six Ministries 六部 were established, solidifying the status of bithesi within the official system. It was decreed that the title baksi would be officially replaced by bithesi and should no longer be used, except for positions directly granted by the emperor (Ji et al., 1983a, p. 4). Scholars have differing interpretations regarding the duties of bithesi. Yang (1984, pp. 86–87) suggests that originally, bithesi held low-ranking positions primarily responsible for translating documents and managing records within various Qing government organizations. However, by 1673, their role had evolved to become significant within the Qing dynasty’s decision-making framework. Conversely, Li (1994, pp. 90–91) proposes that bithesi had three primary responsibilities: translation, transcription, and archival management. This is supported by references in the Imperial Comprehensive Treatises 欽定皇朝通志 (Ji et al., 1983b, p. 8).

According to their tasks, bithesi were categorized into translation bithesi 翻譯筆帖式, transcription bithesi 繕寫筆帖式, and aisilambi bithesi 帖寫筆帖式 (Zhao, 1977, p. 3213). In terms of family background and ethnic origin, bithesi could further be classified into Manchus, Mongols, and Chinese armies (Ji et al., 1983b, p. 8). Bithesi held positions across various governmental agencies, with roles distributed throughout the Capital (Beijing 北京), the five ministries in the Old Capital (Shenyang 沈陽), as well as offices led by Generals 將軍, Commanders-in-chief 都統, and Vice Commanders-in-chief 副都統 (Zhao, 1977, p. 3213). Scholars (Zhao, 2006; Shi and Wei, 2015; Yeh, 2017) have offered differing estimates regarding the numbers of bithesi within different governmental agencies. According to their statistics, there were more than 1500 bithesi during each reign of the Qing emperors, with some periods exceeding 2000 (see also Gao et al., 2023). Additionally, bithesi served as a pathway for Manchus to work within governmental agencies and acted as a training ground for civil servants, with many senior officials having once occupied these positions (Fuge, 1984, p. 22). Therefore, it is reasonable to say that bithesi were integral to the bureaucratic system of the Qing dynasty, with roles that encompassed translation before decision-making, transcription after decisions were made, and daily archival management (Shi and Wei, 2015, p. 47).

The operational mode of the multilingual translation practices of official documents

To enact efficient governance of the State, the Qing rulers not only established various translation agencies staffed with ad hoc officials but also created a multilingual framework for the translation of official documents aligned with their political and ethnic structures and further institutionalized the operational modes of these translations.

Translation mode for Manchu-Mongolian and Manchu-Chinese official documents. The Qing dynasty, despite being predominantly led by the Manchus, governed over a diverse multi-ethnic populace. This intricate social fabric, characterized by a minority ruling over a majority, presented inherent challenges to the Qing rulers in establishing a stable social foundation for their rule. To navigate these complexities, Qing rulers strategically sought to foster harmonious relations with the various ethnic groups under their governance, thereby expanding their social base (Yu, 2003, p. 21). Given the pivotal contributions of the Mongols and Han Chinese to the formation and development of the Qing dynasty, the interactions between the Manchus and these two ethnic groups became fundamental elements in the ethnic dynamics of the Qing era (Yu, 2003, p. 21). Operating within this complex socio-political landscape, the Qing government adopted a dual-pronged approach to governance. On the one hand, it leveraged the assistance of the ruling elites within each ethnic group to administer their respective ethnic groups; on the other hand, it fostered alliances between the Mongols and Han Chinese to govern other ethnic groups effectively (Lȕ, 1959, p. 801). Central to the Qing governance philosophy was the multi-ethnic oneness theory. This ideology was encapsulated in proclamations asserting the unity of the Manchus and Mongols as a community, as well as familial ties between the Manchus and Han Chinese (Li, 2018, p. 25). To realize this vision, the Qing administration reinstated officials of Mongolian and Han Chinese and established a feudal bureaucratic system characterized by shared governance among the Manchus, Mongols, and Han Chinese (Li, 2018, p. 28). This bureaucratic framework laid the groundwork for extensive translation activities between Manchu, Mongolian, and Chinese.

The translation of official documents between Manchu and Mongolian was primarily overseen by Lifanyuan. To facilitate this process, the Qing government established the Mongolian Translation Office, assigning fifty-five Mongolian bithesi and sixteen Mongolian eight banner bithesi to handle Mongolian documents (The Palace Museum, 2000, pp. 102–103). A structured process for translating official documents from the Mongolian region was also established: (1) Memorials were dispatched to Lifanyuan via courier stations 驛站; (2) The administrative aide in the Lifanyuan conveyed these memorials to two bithesi for translation into Manchu; (3) The translated texts were scrutinized and refined by senior officials; (4) The Manchu-translated memorials were presented to the Emperor for review; (5) Both the Manchu-translated memorials and their original Mongolian versions were submitted to the Imperial Household Department 內務府 for archival purposes (Bagen, 2004, p. 43).

The translation of official documents from Chinese into Manchu was managed by the Grand Secretariat. According to Pan (1987, pp. 70–71), the Grand Secretariat implemented more complicated procedures for the translation and dissemination of official documents, outlined as follows: (1) Chinese routine memorials submitted to the Grand Secretariat were recorded and filed by Han Chinese dorgi bithesi, then forwarded to the Academician Reader-in-waiting 侍讀學士, who distributed the memorials to Manchurian dorgi bithesi based on their urgency, and the Manchurian dorgi bithesi translated them into Manchu according to summaries of the Chinese versions; (2) Proofreading was done in order by dorgi bithesi, readers-in-waiting, and the Academician Reader-in-waiting, after which the texts were transcribed by the Academician Reader-in-waiting and proofread again by the Readers-in-waiting in the Manchu Documents Section; (3) The dorgi bithesi in the Chinese Document Registry漢票簽處 wrote draft notes and handed them over to the Readers-in-waiting for review, after which the dorgi bithesi in the Manchu Document Registry translated them into Manchu for finalization by the grand Academicians 大學士; (4) The Manchu Document Registry 滿票簽處made final notes in Manchu before handing the documents back to the Chinese Document Registry for transcription in Chinese, and daily routine memorials were then submitted by dorgi bithesi in the Manchu Document Registry to the Endorsement-Copying Office 批本處 in the Qianqing Gate, which sent them to the Emperor based on the submission date; (5) Once the routine memorials were returned, the Endorsement-Copying Office transcribed them with cinnabar-colored ink based on the emperor’s notes in Manchu, and they were then sent back to the Grand Secretariat for transcription and approval in Chinese by the Grand Academicians; (6) After receiving approval with cinnabar-colored ink, the documents were passed to the Imperial Documents Office 紅本處, and the supervising secretaries 給事中 in the Six Offices of Scrutiny 六科 retrieved them from the Grand Secretariat and handed them over to each ministry for transcription.

The Qing government’s meticulous translation and transmission processes for Manchu-Mongolian and Manchu-Chinese documents served multiple purposes. First, they ensured the smooth operation of the bureaucratic system, allowing for efficient communication and decision-making within the government. Second, these processes facilitated effective governance over the vast territories inhabited by the Han Chinese and Mongolian populations, helping to maintain stability and order. Third, they promoted cultural exchanges and interactions among the diverse ethnic groups of the Manchus, Mongols, and Han Chinese, fostering a sense of unity and cooperation within the country.

Translation mode for Manchu-Tibetan and Manchu-Uyghur official documents. With the Qing dynasty’s unification of regions like Xizang and Xinjiang, which held strategic significance due to their border positions, the administration faced the challenge of effectively governing these territories. Recognizing the unique characteristics of these border areas, including their natural geography, historical development, religion, culture, and customs, the Qing emperors adopted a policy of “governing according to local customs,” as previously mentioned. This approach involved tailoring management policies and systems to suit the specific conditions of each region, diverging from those established in the central plains (Zhang, 2013, p. 120).

In Xizang, the Qing government implemented measures such as ennoblements, fixed rules, appointing officials, and garrisoning to strengthen governance (Yang and Cao, 2012, p. 32). However, linguistic differences posed a challenge to the implementation of these measures, necessitating the assistance of translators. Despite the Qing central government’s institutional framework assigning Tibetan affairs to the Lifanyuan, no ad hoc translation agency for Manchu-Tibetan documents was established within this institution. Instead, historical records indicate that translation tasks were delegated to individuals such as the assistant teacher of Tanggute xue, who was responsible not only for teaching but also for translating imperial decrees to the Dalai Lama (Kungang, 1899, vol. 992, p. 14). Over time, this responsibility was assumed by interpreters trained by Tanggute xue and the lamas stationed in the capital, leading to a longstanding practice of monks participating in the translation of Manchu-Tibetan documents (Shi, 2018a, p. 63).

Although the Qing dynasty did not establish formal institutional regime for the translation between Manchu and Tibetan documents, translations were nonetheless conducted according to established procedures. The process of translating Tibetan documents into Manchu was as follows: Tibetan official documents were first submitted, and then forwarded by Lifanyuan to the Grand Secretariat, where translation officials translated them into Manchu; the translated documents were then presented to the Emperor by the Grand Academicians and Academicians; if the Emperor found the meaning of the translated text difficult to comprehend, the Grand Secretariat would conduct a detailed re-examination of the translation; documents reviewed either by the emperor or by the Grand Minister would be sent back to the Grand Secretariat, which would then return both the Tibetan and translated versions to the Lifanyuan for further processing (see Shi, 2018a, p. 63).

The translation of imperial edicts and other documents intended for Xizang also followed fixed procedures: The documents were initially drafted in Manchu by the Grand Secretariat under imperial decree and submitted for the emperor’s review; The Manchu documents would then either be approved by the emperor or discussed by the Grand Ministers of the Palace Commanding the Imperial Bodyguard 領侍衛內大臣 and the Grand Ministers of the Deliberative Council 議政大臣 before being translated into Mongolian by translation officials within the Grand Secretariat; both the Manchu and Mongolian versions would then be translated into Tibetan before being handed over to the Lifanyuan, which would dispatch the documents to the relevant officials in Xizang (see Shi, 2018a, p. 63).

In the 24th year of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign (1759), the Qing government achieved the unification of Xinjiang (Guo, 2019, p. 2). In this region, Manchu language was designated as the official language, mandating all officials and administrative staff to utilize the Manchu language (Yang and Ma, 2014, p. 42). Consequently, memorials, edicts, official documents, grants, and other records were predominantly drafted in Manchu (Ethnic Language Working Committee of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 2005, p. 223). Considering that Xinjiang’s diverse ethnic, religious, and linguistic landscape, the Qing government also implemented the policy of “governing according to the local customs.” Under this policy, Uyghur retained its status as the official language in Xinjiang, with a requirement for all public notices to be presented in both Uyghur and Manchurian scripts, and official seals and letters to be “cast in both Uyghur and Manchurian” (Wang, 2008, p. 38). Consequently, official documents issued in Xinjiang utilized both the Qing court’s official language and the scripts of the ethnic minorities. Translation between Manchu and Uyghur documents thus became an indispensable means to facilitate governance in Xinjiang. The Qing government implemented various measures to ensure the translation between Manchu and Uyghur documents. First, it established the Mongolian Documents Section within the Grand Secretariat, specifically for Uyghur translation. Second, in 1748, the government founded the Xiyu Guan, which functioned both as a translation agency and a training center for translators, responsible for translating the languages of the Western Regions and assisting with the reception of officials.

Conclusion

If the governments in the Han dynasties were considered documentary governments, the Qing government could be described as a government based on document translation. The Qing administration constructed a robust regime for the translation of official documents, characterized by diversified translation agencies, ad hoc translation officials, and a multilingual translation mode. The translation agencies were responsible for translating a wide array of documents, including routine memorials from local governments, imperial decrees, documents from border regions, and diplomatic documents from vassal states. A considerable number of dorgi bithesi, bithesi, and other specialized translation officials were appointed to these agencies to carry out their respective translation duties. The multilingual official documents translation mode, spanning Manchu-Mongolian, Manchu-Chinese, Manchu-Tibetan, and Manchu-Uighur translations, not only ensured the effective implementation of state administration but also facilitated the Qing government’s efficient governance of border regions such as Mongolia, Xizang, and Xinjiang. In essence, the translation of official documents profoundly influenced the core concepts, institutional systems, and organizational mechanisms of Qing state governance. Similar to Wang Chong’s assertion that the Han dynasty “governed the state with documents” (2004, p. 121), it can be argued that the Qing dynasty governed the state with document translations.