The Qianlong Emperor (25 September 1711 – 7 February 1799) was the sixth Emperor of the Qing dynasty, and the fourth Qing emperor to rule over China proper, reigned from 1735 to 1796. Born Hongli, the fourth son of the Yongzheng Emperor, he reigned officially from 11 October 1735 to 8 February 1796.[a] In 1796, he abdicated in favour of his son, the Jiaqing Emperor—a filial act in order not to reign longer than his grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor, who ruled for 61 years. Despite his retirement, however, he retained ultimate power as the Retired Emperor until his death in 1799; he thus was one of the longest-reigning de facto rulers in the history of the world, and dying at the age of 87, one of the longest-lived. As a capable and cultured ruler inheriting a thriving empire, during his long reign the Qing Empire reached its most splendid and prosperous era, boasting a large population and economy. As a military leader, he led military campaigns expanding the dynastic territory to the largest extent by conquering and sometimes destroying Central Asian kingdoms. This turned around in his late years: the Qing empire began to decline with corruption and wastefulness in his court and a stagnating civil society.
|Prince Bao of the First Rank|
|6th Emperor of the Qing dynasty|
|Reign||18 October 1735 – 9 February 1796|
|Born||Aisin Gioro Hongli|
25 September 1711
(康熙五十年 八月 十三日)
Prince Yong Mansion
|Died||7 February 1799 (aged 87)|
(嘉慶四年 正月 三日)
Yu Mausoleum, Eastern Qing tombs
(m. 1727; died 1748)
(m. 1734; died 1766)
|Issue||Yonghuang, Prince Ding'an of the First Rank|
Yongzhang, Prince Xun of the Second Rank
Yongcheng, Prince Lüduan of the First Rank
Yongqi, Prince Rongchun of the First Rank
Yongrong, Prince Zhizhuang of the First Rank
Yongxuan, Prince Yishen of the First Rank
Yongxing, Prince Chengzhe of the First Rank
Yonglin, Prince Qingxi of the First Rank
Princess Hejing of the First Rank
Princess Hejia of the Second Rank
Princess Hejing of the First Rank
Princess Heke of the Second Rank
Princess Hexiao of the First Rank
A British valet who accompanied his diplomat master to the Qing court in 1793 described the emperor:
The Emperor is about five feet ten inches in height, and of a slender but elegant form; his complexion is comparatively fair, though his eyes are dark; his nose is rather aquiline, and the whole of his countenance presents a perfect regularity of feature, which, by no means, announce the great age he is said to have attained; his person is attracting, and his deportment accompanied by an affability, which, without lessening the dignity of the prince, evinces the amiable character of the man. His dress consisted of a loose robe of yellow silk, a cap of black velvet with a red ball on the top, and adorned with a peacock's feather, which is the peculiar distinction of mandarins of the first class. He wore silk boots embroidered with gold, and a sash of blue girded his waist.
Hongli was the fourth son of the Yongzheng Emperor, and was born to Noble Consort Xi. Hongli was adored by both his grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor, and his father, the Yongzheng Emperor. Some historians[who?] argue that the main reason why the Kangxi Emperor appointed the Yongzheng Emperor as his successor was because Hongli was his favourite grandson. He felt that Hongli's mannerisms were very similar to his own. As a teenager, Hongli was capable in martial arts and possessed literary ability.
After his father's enthronement in 1722, Hongli was made a qinwang (first-rank prince) under the title "Prince Bao of the First Rank" (和硕宝亲王; 和碩寶親王; héshuò Bǎo qīnwáng). Like many of his uncles, Hongli entered into a battle of succession with his elder half-brother Hongshi, who had the support of a large faction of the officials in the imperial court, as well as Yinsi, Prince Lian. For many years, the Yongzheng Emperor did not designate any of his sons as the crown prince, but many officials speculated that he favoured Hongli. Hongli went on inspection trips to the south, and was known to be an able negotiator and enforcer. He was also appointed as the chief regent on occasions when his father was away from the capital.
Accession to the throneEdit
Hongli's accession to the throne was already foreseen before he was officially proclaimed emperor before the assembled imperial court upon the death of the Yongzheng Emperor. The young Hongli was the favourite grandson of the Kangxi Emperor and the favourite son of the Yongzheng Emperor; the Yongzheng Emperor had entrusted a number of important ritual tasks to Hongli while the latter was still a prince, and included him in important court discussions of military strategy. In the hope of preventing a succession struggle from occurring, the Yongzheng Emperor wrote the name of his chosen successor on a piece of paper and placed it in a sealed box secured behind the tablet over the throne in the Palace of Heavenly Purity (Qianqing Palace). The name in the box was to be revealed to other members of the imperial family in the presence of all senior ministers only upon the death of the emperor. When the Yongzheng Emperor died suddenly in 1735, the will was taken out and read before the entire Qing imperial court, after which Hongli became the new emperor. Hongli adopted the era name "Qianlong", which means "Lasting Eminence".
The Qianlong Emperor was a successful military leader. Immediately after ascending the throne, he sent armies to suppress the Miao rebellion. His later campaigns greatly expanded the territory controlled by the Qing Empire. This was made possible not only by Qing military might, but also by the disunity and declining strength of the Inner Asian peoples.
Under the Qianlong Emperor's reign, the Dzungar Khanate was incorporated into the Qing Empire's rule and renamed Xinjiang, while to the west, Ili was conquered and garrisoned. The incorporation of Xinjiang into the Qing Empire resulted from the final defeat and destruction of the Dzungars (or Zunghars), a coalition of Western Mongol tribes. The Qianlong Emperor then ordered the Dzungar genocide. According to the Qing dynasty scholar Wei Yuan, 40% of the 600,000 Dzungars were killed by smallpox, 20% fled to the Russian Empire or Kazakh tribes, and 30% were killed by the Qing army, in what Michael Edmund Clarke described as "the complete destruction of not only the Zunghar state but of the Zunghars as a people." Historian Peter Perdue has argued that the decimation of the Dzungars was the result of an explicit policy of massacre launched by the Qianlong Emperor.
The Dzungar genocide has been compared to the Qing extermination of the Jinchuan Tibetan people in 1776, which also occurred during the Qianlong Emperor's reign. When victorious troops returned to Beijing, a celebratory hymn was sung in their honour. A Manchu version of the hymn was recorded by the Jesuit Amoit and sent to Paris.
The Qing Empire hired Zhao Yi and Jiang Yongzhi at the Military Archives Office, in their capacity as members of the Hanlin Academy, to compile works on the Dzungar campaign, such as Strategy for the pacification of the Dzungars (Pingding Zhunge'er fanglue). Poems glorifying the Qing conquest and genocide of the Dzungar Mongols were written by Zhao, who wrote the Yanpu zaji in "brush-notes" style, where military expenditures of the Qianlong Emperor's reign were recorded. The Qianlong Emperor was praised as being the source of "eighteenth-century peace and prosperity" by Zhao Yi.
Khalkha Mongol rebels under Prince Chingünjav had plotted with the Dzungar leader Amursana and led a rebellion against the Qing Empire around the same time as the Dzungars. The Qing army crushed the rebellion and executed Chingünjav and his entire family.
Throughout this period there were continued Mongol interventions in Tibet and a reciprocal spread of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia. After the Lhasa riot of 1750, the Qianlong Emperor sent armies into Tibet and firmly established the Dalai Lama as the ruler of Tibet, with a Qing resident and garrison to preserve Qing presence. Further afield, military campaigns against Nepalese and Gurkhas forced the emperor into stalemate where both parties had to submit.
The Qianlong Emperor responded to the vassal Shan states request for military aid against the attacking forces of Burma, but the Sino-Burmese War ended in complete failure. He initially believed that it would be an easy victory against a barbarian tribe, and sent only the Green Standard Army based in Yunnan, which borders Burma. The Qing invasion came as the majority of Burmese forces were deployed in their latest invasion of the Siamese Ayutthaya Kingdom. Nonetheless, battle-hardened Burmese troops defeated the first two invasions of 1765–66 and 1766–67 at the border. The regional conflict now escalated to a major war that involved military manoeuvres nationwide in both countries. The third invasion (1767–1768) led by the elite Manchu Bannermen nearly succeeded, penetrating deep into central Burma within a few days' march from the capital, Ava. However, the Manchu Bannermen of northern China could not cope with "unfamiliar tropical terrains and lethal endemic diseases", and were driven back with heavy losses. After the close-call, King Hsinbyushin redeployed his armies from Siam to the Chinese front. The fourth and largest invasion got bogged down at the frontier. With the Qing forces completely encircled, a truce was reached between the field commanders of the two sides in December 1769. The Qing forces kept a heavy military lineup in the border areas of Yunnan for about one decade in an attempt to wage another war while imposing a ban on inter-border trade for two decades. When Burma and China resumed a diplomatic relationship in 1790, the Qing government unilaterally viewed the act as Burmese submission, and claimed victory.
The circumstances in Vietnam were not successful either. In 1787, Lê Chiêu Thống, the last ruler of the Vietnamese Lê dynasty, fled from Vietnam and formally requested to be restored to his throne in Thăng Long (present-day Hanoi). The Qianlong Emperor agreed and sent a large army into Vietnam to remove the Tây Sơn (peasant rebels who had captured all of Vietnam). The capital, Thăng Long, was conquered in 1788, but a few months later the Qing army was defeated and the invasion turned into a debacle due to the surprise attack during Tết (Vietnamese New Year) by Nguyễn Huệ, the second and most capable of the three Tây Sơn brothers. The Qing Empire gave formal protection to Lê Chiêu Thống and his family, and would not intervene in Vietnam for another 90 years.
Despite setbacks in the south, overall the Qianlong Emperor's military expansion nearly doubled the area of the already vast Qing Empire, and brought into the fold many non-Han-Chinese peoples—such as Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, Evenks and Mongols—who were potentially hostile. It was also a very expensive enterprise; the funds in the Imperial Treasury were almost all put into military expeditions. Though the wars were successful, they were not overwhelmingly so. The Qing army declined noticeably and had a difficult time facing some enemies: the campaign against the Jinchuan hill peoples took 2 to 3 years—at first the Qing army were mauled, though Yue Zhongqi (a descendant of Yue Fei) later took control of the situation. The battle with the Dzungars was closely fought, and caused heavy losses on both sides.
The Ush rebellion in 1765 by Uyghur Muslims against the Manchus occurred after Uyghur women were gang raped by the servants and son of Manchu official Su-cheng. It was said that Ush Muslims had long wanted to sleep on [Sucheng and son's] hides and eat their flesh. because of the rape of Uyghur Muslim women for months by the Manchu official Sucheng and his son. The Manchu Qianlong Emperor ordered that the Uyghur rebel town be massacred, the Qing forces enslaved all the Uyghur children and women and slaughtered the Uyghur men. Manchu soldiers and Manchu officials regularly having sex with or raping Uyghur women caused massive hatred and anger by Uyghur Muslims to Manchu rule. The invasion by Jahangir Khoja was preceded by another Manchu official, Binjing who raped a Muslim daughter of the Kokan aqsaqal from 1818-1820. The Qing sought to cover up the rape of Uyghur women by Manchus to prevent anger against their rule from spreading among the Uyghurs.
At the end of the frontier wars, the Qing army had started to weaken significantly. In addition to a more lenient military system, warlords became satisfied with their lifestyles. Since most of the warring had already taken place, warlords no longer saw any reason to train their armies, resulting in a rapid military decline by the end of the Qianlong Emperor's reign. This was the main reason for the Qing military's failure to suppress the White Lotus Rebellion, which started towards the end of the Qianlong Emperor's reign and extended into the reign of the Jiaqing Emperor.
The Qianlong Emperor, like his predecessors, took his cultural role seriously. First of all, he worked to preserve the Manchu heritage, which he saw as the basis of the moral character of the Manchus and thus of the dynasty's power. He ordered the compilation of Manchu language genealogies, histories, and ritual handbooks and in 1747 secretly ordered the compilation of the Shamanic Code, published later in the Siku Quanshu. He further solidified the dynasty's cultural and religious claims in Central Asia by ordering a replica of the Potala Palace, the Tibetan temple, to be built on the grounds of the imperial summer palace in Chengde. In order to present himself to Tibetans and Mongols in Buddhist rather than in Confucian terms, he commissioned a thangka, or sacred painting, depicting him as Manjushri, the Bodhisattva of Wisdom.
The Qianlong Emperor was a major patron and important "preserver and restorer" of Confucian culture. He had an insatiable appetite for collecting, and acquired much of China's "great private collections" by any means necessary, and "reintegrated their treasures into the imperial collection." The Qianlong Emperor, more than any other Manchu emperor, lavished the imperial collection with his attention and effort:
The imperial collection had its origins in the first century BC, and had gone through many vicissitudes of fire, civil wars and foreign invasions in the centuries that followed. But it was Qianlong who lavished the greatest attention on it, certainly of any of the Manchu rulers... One of the many roles played by Qianlong, with his customary diligence, was that of the emperor as collector and curator. ...how carefully Qianlong followed the art market in rare paintings and antiquities, using a team of cultural advisers, from elderly Chinese literati to newly fledged Manchu connoisseurs. These men would help the emperor spot which great private collections might be coming up for sale, either because the fortunes of some previously rich merchant family were unraveling or because the precious objects acquired by Manchu or Chinese grandees during the chaos of the conquest period were no longer valued by those families' surviving heirs. Sometimes, too, Qianlong would pressure or even force wealthy courtiers into yielding up choice art objects: he did this by pointing out failings in their work, which might be excused if they made a certain "gift", or, in a couple of celebrated cases, by persuading the current owners that only the secure walls of the forbidden City and its guardians could save some precious painting from theft or from fire.
The Qianlong Emperor's massive art collection became an intimate part of his life; he took landscape paintings with him on his travels in order to compare them with the actual landscapes, or to hang them in special rooms in palaces where he lodged, to inscribe them on every visit there. "He also regularly added poetic inscriptions to the paintings of the imperial collection, following the example of the emperors of the Song dynasty and the literati painters of the Ming dynasty. They were a mark of distinction for the work, and a visible sign of his rightful role as emperor. Most particular to the Qianlong Emperor is another type of inscription, revealing a unique practice of dealing with works of art that he seems to have developed for himself. On certain fixed occasions over a long period he contemplated a number of paintings or works of calligraphy which possessed special meaning for him, inscribing each regularly with mostly private notes on the circumstances of enjoying them, using them almost as a diary."
"Most of the several thousand jade items in the imperial collection date from his reign. The (Qianlong) Emperor was also particularly interested in collecting ancient bronzes, bronze mirrors and seals," in addition to pottery, ceramics and applied arts such as enameling, metal work and lacquer work, which flourished during his reign; a substantial part of his collection is in the Percival David Foundation in London. The Victoria and Albert Museum and British Museum also have collections of art from the Qianlong era.
"The Qianlong Emperor was a passionate poet and essayist. In his collected writings, which were published in a tenfold series between 1749 and 1800, over 40,000 poems and 1,300 prose texts are listed, making him one of the most prolific writers of all time. There is a long tradition of poems of this sort in praise of particular objects ('yongwu shi), and the Qianlong Emperor used it in order to link his name both physically and intellectually with ancient artistic tradition."
One of the Qianlong Emperor's grandest projects was to "assemble a team of China's finest scholars for the purpose of assembling, editing, and printing the largest collection ever made of Chinese philosophy, history, and literature." Known as the Four Treasuries Project (or Siku Quanshu), it was published in 36,000 volumes, containing about 3,450 complete works and employing as many as 15,000 copyists. It preserved numerous books, but was also intended as a way to ferret out and suppress political opponents, requiring the "careful examination of private libraries to assemble a list of around eleven thousand works from the past, of which about a third were chosen for publication. The works not included were either summarised or—in a good many cases—scheduled for destruction."
Burning of books and modification of textsEdit
Some 2,300 works were listed for total suppression and another 350 for partial suppression. The aim was to destroy the writings that were anti-Qing or rebellious, that insulted previous "barbarian" dynasties, or that dealt with frontier or defence problems. The full editing of the Siku Quanshu was completed in about ten years; during these ten years, 3,100 titles (or works), about 150,000 copies of books were either burnt or banned. Of those volumes that had been categorised into the Siku Quanshu, many were subjected to deletion and modification. Books published during the Ming dynasty suffered the greatest damage.
The authority would judge any single character or any single sentence's neutrality; if the authority had decided these words, or sentence, were derogatory or cynical towards the rulers, then persecution would begin. In the Qianlong Emperor's time, there were 53 cases of Literary Inquisition, resulting in the victims executed by beheading or slow slicing (lingchi), or having their corpses mutilated (if they were already dead).
In 1743, after his first visit to Mukden (present-day Shenyang, Liaoning), the Qianlong Emperor used Chinese to write his "Ode to Mukden," (Shengjing fu/Mukden-i fujurun bithe), a fu in classical style, as a poem of praise to Mukden, at that point a general term for what was later called Manchuria, describing its beauties and historical values. He describes the mountains and wildlife, using them to justify his belief that the dynasty would endure. A Manchu translation was then made. In 1748, he ordered a jubilee printing in both Chinese and Manchu, using some genuine pre-Qin forms, but Manchu styles which had to be invented and which could not be read.
In his childhood, the Qianlong Emperor was tutored in Manchu, Chinese and Mongolian, arranged to be tutored in Tibetan, and spoke Chagatai (Turki or Modern Uyghur) and Tangut. However, he was even more concerned than his predecessors to preserve and promote the Manchu language among his followers, as he proclaimed that "the keystone for Manchus is language." He commissioned new Manchu dictionaries, and directed the preparation of the Pentaglot Dictionary which gave equivalents for Manchu terms in Mongolian, Tibetan and Turkic, and had the Buddhist canon translated into Manchu, which was considered the "national language". He directed the elimination of loanwords taken from Chinese and replaced them with calque translations which were put into new Manchu dictionaries. Manchu translations of Chinese works during his reign were direct translations contrasted with Manchu books translated during the Kangxi Emperor's reign which were transliterations in Manchu script of the Chinese characters.
The Qianlong Emperor commissioned the Yuding Xiyu Tongwen Zhi (欽定西域同文志; "Imperial Western Regions Thesaurus") which was a thesaurus of geographic names in Xinjiang in Oirat Mongol, Manchu, Chinese, Tibetan, and Turki (Modern Uyghur).
The long association of the Manchu rulership with the Bodhisattva Manjusri and his own interest in Tibetan Buddhism gave credence to the Qianlong Emperor's patronage of Tibetan Buddhist art and patronage of translations of the Buddhist canon. The accounts in court records and Tibetan language sources affirm his personal commitment. He quickly learned to read the Tibetan language and studied Buddhist texts assiduously. His beliefs are reflected in the Tibetan Buddhist imagery of his tomb, perhaps the most personal and private expression of an emperor's life. He supported the Yellow Church (the Tibetan Buddhist Gelukpa sect) to "maintain peace among the Mongols" since the Mongols were followers of the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama of the Yellow Church, and the Qianlong Emperor had this explanation placed in the Yonghe Temple in Beijing on a stele entitled "Lama Shuo" (on Lamas) in 1792, and he also said it was "merely in pursuance of Our policy of extending Our affection to the weak." which led him to patronize the Yellow Church. Mark Elliott concludes that these actions delivered political benefits but "meshed seamlessly with his personal faith."
This explanation of supporting the "Yellow Hats" Tibetan Buddhists for practical reasons was used to deflect Han criticism of this policy by the Qianlong Emperor, who had the "Lama Shuo" stele engraved in Tibetan, Mongol, Manchu and Chinese, which said: "By patronizing the Yellow Church, we maintain peace among the Mongols. This being an important task we cannot but protect this (religion). (In doing so) we do not show any bias, nor do we wish to adulate the Tibetan priests as (was done during the) Yuan dynasty."
The Qianlong Emperor turned the Palace of Harmony (Yonghe Palace) into a Tibetan Buddhist temple for Mongols in 1744 and had an edict inscribed on a stele to commemorate it in Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Manchu, with most likely the Qianlong Emperor having first wrote the Chinese version before the Manchu.
Persecution of Christians by his father became even worse during his reign.
Qing policy on Muslims and Islam was changed during the reign of the Kangxi, Yongzheng and Qianlong emperors. While the Kangxi emperors proclaimed Muslims and Han to be equal, his grandson the Manchu Qianlong emperor endorsed Han officials harsh recommendations towards treatment of Muslims. The Kangxi emperor said that Muslim and Han Chinese were equal when people argued for Muslims to be treated differently. The Qing Yongzheng emperor held the opinion that Islam was foolish, but he felt it did not pose a threat when a judge in Shandong petitioned him to destroy mosques and ban Islam. Yongzheng then fired an official for demanding Muslims be punished more harshly than non-Muslims.
This policy changed in the reign of the Qianlong emperor, the son of the Yongzheng emperor and grandson of the Kangxi emperor. Chen Hongmou, a Qing official, said that Muslims needed to be brought to law and order by being punished more harshly and blaming Muslim leaders for criminal behavior of Muslims in a letter to the Board of Punishments called Covenant to Instruct and Admonish Muslims that he wrote in 1751. Although the Board of Punishment did nothing, the Shaanxi-Gansu Governor-General in 1762 then proceeded to implement his recommendation and had Muslim criminals punished severely more than Han Chinese ones. He also implemented the policy that the criminal deeds of Muslim congregants of Mosques ended up with their Imams being punished and held responsible for them. These anti-Muslim policies by the governor general received endorsement from the Manchu Qianlong emperor.
Great changes happening to Chinese Muslims, like the introduction of a Sufi order, the Naqshbandiyya to the Hui, causing the Qianlong emperor to adopt this harsh attitude against Muslims in contrast to his grandfather and father. This led to larger connections between the Hui and the broader Islamic world from the west, as the Naqshbandiyya order came east to the Hui when Hui scholars in Suzhou were converted to Naqshbandiyya by Muhammad Yusuf. Khoja Afaq, Muhammad Yusuf's son, also further spread Naqshbandi orders among Chinese Muslims like Tibetan Muslims, Salars, Hui and other Msulim ethnicities in Hezhou, Gansu (now Linxia) and Xining in Qinghai and Lanzhou. Ma Laichi was the leader of one of these orders and he personally studied in the Islamic world in Bukhara to learn Sufism, and Yemen and in Mecca where he was taught by Mawlana Makhdum. This brought him prestige among Chinese Muslims. In an argument over the brekaing of fast during Ramadan Ma Laichi said that before praying in the mosque, fast should be broken, not vice versa and this led to him getting many Naqshbandi converts from Hui and Turkic Salars. It came to court in 1731 when the Muslims arguing over how to break Ramadan fast filed lawsuits. The Muslim plaintiffs were told by the Qing authorities at the court to resolve the themselves, as the legal authorities who had no idea about Ramadan fasting. The dispute was not solved and continued to go on and was compounded by even more disputes like how to perform dhikr in Sufism, in a jahri (vocal) as taught by Ma Mingxin, another Sufi who learned in the western Islamic lands like Bukhara, or khufi (silent) like what Ma Laichi did. The Zabid Naqshbandiyyas in Yemen taught Ma Mingxin for two decades. They taught vocal dhikr. Ma Mingxin was also affected by another series of events in the Middle Eastern Muslim world, western European imperialism in the post-enlightenment eighteenth century causing revivalist movements among Muslims like the Saudis who allied with Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. This renewal tajdid influenced Ma Mingxin in Yemen.
While Ma Mingxin was in Yemen and away from China, all of Muslim Inner Asia was conquered by the "infidel" Qing dynasty giving even more relevance to his situation and views. Ma Laichi and Ma Mingxin again sued each other in court but this second time the Qing passed a verdict in favor of the quiet dhikr faction, the Silentist Khafiyya of Ma Laichi and gave it the status of orthodoxy while damning as heterodox the Aloudist Jahriyya of Ma Mingxin. Ma Mingxin ignored the order and kept proselytizing in Shaanxi, Ningxia and Xinjiang going to Guangchuan from Hezhou in 1769 after being kicked out and banned from Xunhua district. Turkic Salars in Xunhua followed his orders even after the Qing banned him from there and he continued to have further lawsuits and legal issues with the Khafiyya and Ma Laichi as the Qing backed the Khafiyya.
A violent battle where a Qing official and Khafiyya followers were among one hundred slaughtered by a Jahriyya assault headed by Su Forty-three, a supporter of Ma Mingxin in 1781 led to Ma Mingxin declared a rebel and taken to jail in Lanzhou. The Qing executed Ma Mingxin after his release was demanded by the armed followers of Su Forty-three. A Jahriyya rebellion all over northwest China ensued after Ma Mingxin was executed. In response, the Manchus in Beijing sent Manchu Grand Secretary Agui with a battalion to slaughter Jahriyya chiefs and exile the adherents of the Sufi order to the border regions.
Tian Wu led another Jahriyya rebellion 3 years after that, which was crushed by the Qing, and the Ma Datian, the Jahriyya's 3rd leader was exiled to Manchuria in 1818 by the Qing and died.
This continual build up of conflict between Muslims and the Qing court led to the 19th century full scale wars with Muslim rebellions against the Qing in southern and northern China. The change in Manchu attitudes towards Muslims, from tolerating Muslims and regarding them as equal to Han Chinese, before the 1760s, to the violence between the Qing state and Muslims after the 1760s, was due to progressive Qing involvement in the conflict between the Sufi orders Jahriyya and Khafiyya making it no longer possible for the Qing to keep up with the early rhetoric of Muslim equality. The Manchu court under Qianlong began approving and implementing Chen Hongmou's anti-Muslim laws that targeted Muslims for practicing their religion and the violence by the Qing state, the communal violence between Jahriyya and Khafiyya coincided with the Jahriyya's major expansion.
Qing incompetence destroyed the economy of the places where Muslims lived in leading to even more tension.
Chen Hongmou's policies were implemented as laws in 1762 by the Qing government's Board of Punishments and the Qing Manchu Qianlong emperor leading to severe tensions with Muslims. State authorities were mandated to receive all reports of Muslim criminal behaviour by local officials and all criminal behaviour by Muslims had to be reported by Muslim leaders to Qing authorities under these laws. This led to an inundation of anti-Muslim reports filing in Qing offices as the Qing court received information that Muslims were inherently violent and Muslim bandits were committing crimes as report after report were filed by local officials and Muslim crimes inundated court records. The Qing became even more anti-Muslim after receiving these reports about criminal behavior and started passing even more anti-Muslim laws one of them being that if any weapon was found in a group of 3 or more Muslims all of those Muslims would by sentenced as criminals by the Qing.
A new criminal category or act, brawling (dou'ou) was designated by the Qing Manchu court of the Manchu Qianlong emperor in the 1770s especially as an anti-Muslim measure to arrest Muslims leading to even non-Jahriyya Muslims to join with Jahriyya against the Qing and leading the Qing court to be even more anti-Muslim, apprehensive of anti-Qing rebellion by Muslims. This led to the execution of Ma Mingxin in 1781 and the rebellion and violence was compounded by lack of Qing intelligence. A Qing official who was tasked with ending the Jahriyya and Khafiyya communal violence mistakenly thought the people he were talking to were Khafiyya when they were in fact Jahriyya, and he told them that the Qing would massacre all Jahriyya adherents. This led to him being murdered by the Jahriyya mob, which led to the Qing sending Manchu Grand Secretary Agui on a full scale pacification crackdown campaign against the Jahriyya.
The military victory of the Qing against the Jahriyya led to even more Jahriyya anger. Officials went overboard in massacring Muslims deemed as state enemies to impress the Qing court, leading to further growth in Jahriyya membership, leading in turn to the 1784 rebellion by Tian Wu.
The Qianlong emperor asked his minister what was going on as he was puzzled as to how the Muslims from many regions gathered together for revolt. He asked if the investigation of Muslim behavior b y Li Shiyao got leaked leading to rebels to incite violence by telling Muslims the government would exterminate them. He then pondered and said none of these could be why and kept asking why. To solve the issue of the 1784 revolt, northwestern China was put under military occupation by the Qing for 50 years until the Taiping rebellion of southern China forced the Qing to move them away from northwest China leading to the massive 1860s and 1870s Muslim revolts in the northwest caused by growing violence.
The sudden questions about Halal in Islam that Mongol Buddhists had in the 18th century was caused by all these things, northwestern China right next to Mongolia getting militarized, the Qing government officially declaring Muslims to be anti-Qing and violent and revivalist Islam coming to China 
The Qianlong Emperor was an aggressive builder. In the hills northwest of Beijing, he expanded the villa known as the "Garden of Perfect Brightness" (Yuanmingyuan) (now known as the Old Summer Palace) that was built by his father. He eventually added two new villas, the "Garden of Eternal Spring" and the "Elegant Spring Garden". In time, the Old Summer Palace would encompass 860 acres (350 hectares), five times larger than the Forbidden City. To celebrate the 60th birthday of his mother, Empress Dowager Chongqing, the Qianlong Emperor ordered a lake at the "Garden of Clear Ripples" (Qingyiyuan) (now known as the Summer Palace) dredged, named it Kunming Lake, and renovated a villa on the eastern shore of the lake.
The Qianlong Emperor also expanded the imperial summer palace in Rehe Province, beyond the Great Wall. Rehe eventually became effectively a third capital and it was at Rehe that the Qianlong Emperor held court with various Mongol nobles. The emperor also spent time at the Mulan hunting grounds north of Rehe, where he held the imperial hunt each year.
For the Old Summer Palace, the Qianlong Emperor commissioned the Italian Jesuit Giuseppe Castiglione for the construction of the Xiyang Lou, or Western-style mansion, to satisfy his taste for exotic buildings and objects. He also commissioned the French Jesuit Michel Benoist, to design a series of timed waterworks and fountains complete with underground machinery and pipes, for the amusement of the imperial family. The French Jesuit Jean Denis Attiret also became a painter for the emperor. Jean-Damascène Sallusti was also a court painter. He co-designed, with Castiglione and Ignatius Sichelbart, the Battle Copper Prints.
During the Qianlong Emperor's reign, the Emin Minaret was built in Turpan to commemorate Emin Khoja, a Uyghur leader from Turfan who submitted to the Qing Empire as a vassal in order to obtain assistance from the Qing to fight the Zunghars.
Descendants of the Ming dynasty's imperial familyEdit
In 1725, the Yongzheng Emperor bestowed a hereditary marquis title on a descendant of Zhu Zhilian, a descendant of the imperial family of the Ming dynasty. Zhu was also paid by the Qing government to perform rituals at the Ming tombs and induct the Chinese Plain White Banner into the Eight Banners. Zhu was posthumously awarded the title "Marquis of Extended Grace" in 1750, and the title was passed on for 12 generations in his family until the end of the Qing dynasty. However, it has been argued that Zhu Zhilian, in fact, had no relation to the imperial family at all.
The Qianlong Emperor instituted a policy of "Manchu-fying" the Eight Banner system, which was the basic military and social organisation of the dynasty. In the early Qing era, Nurhaci and Huangtaiji categorised Manchu and Han ethnic identity within the Eight Banners based on culture, lifestyle and language, instead of ancestry or genealogy. Han Bannermen were an important part of the Banner System. The Qianlong Emperor changed this definition to one of descent, and demobilised many Han Bannermen and urged Manchu Bannermen to protect their cultural heritage, language and martial skills. The emperor redefined the identity of Han Bannermen by saying that they were to be regarded as of having the same culture and being of the same ancestral extraction as Han civilians Conversely, he emphasised the martial side of Manchu culture and reinstituted the practice of the annual imperial hunt as begun by his grandfather, leading contingents from the Manchu and Mongol banners to the Mulan hunting grounds each autumn to test and improve their skills.
The Qianlong Emperor's view of the Han Bannermen also differed from that of his grandfather in deciding that loyalty in itself was most important quality. He sponsored biographies which depicted Chinese Bannermen who defected from the Ming to the Qing as traitors and glorifying Ming loyalists. Some of the Qianlong Emperor's inclusions and omissions on the list of traitors were political in nature. Some of these actions were including Li Yongfang (out of his dislike for Li Yongfang's descendant, Li Shiyao) and excluding Ma Mingpei (out of concern for his son Ma Xiongzhen's image).
The identification and interchangeability between "Manchu" and "Banner people" (Qiren) began in the 17th century. Banner people were differentiated from civilians (Chinese: minren, Manchu: irgen, or Chinese: Hanren, Manchu :Nikan) and the term Bannermen was becoming identical with "Manchu" in the general perception. The Qianlong Emperor referred to all Bannermen as Manchu, and Qing laws did not say "Manchu", but "Bannermen".
Select groups of Han Chinese bannermen were mass transferred into Manchu Banners by the Qing, changing their ethnicity from Han Chinese to Manchu. Han Chinese bannermen of Tai Nikan 台尼堪 (watchpost Chinese) and Fusi Nikan 抚顺尼堪 (Fushun Chinese) backgrounds into the Manchu banners in 1740 by order of the Qing Qianlong emperor. It was between 1618–1629 when the Han Chinese from Liaodong who later became the Fushun Nikan and Tai Nikan defected to the Jurchens (Manchus). These Han Chinese origin Manchu clans continue to use their original Han surnames and are marked as of Han origin on Qing lists of Manchu clans.
The Solons were ordered by the Qianlong Emperor to stop using rifles and instead practice traditional archery. The emperor issued an edict for silver taels to be issued for guns turned over to the government.
The Manchu prince Abatai's daughter was married to the Han Chinese general Li Yongfang (李永芳). The offspring of Li received the "Third-class Viscount" (三等子爵; sān děng zǐjué) title. Li Yongfang was the great-great-great-grandfather of Li Shiyao (李侍堯), who, during the Qianlong Emperor's reign, was involved in graft and embezzlement, demoted of his noble title and sentenced to death; however, his life was spared and he regained his title after assisting in the Taiwan campaign.
Chinese political identity and frontier policyEdit
The Qianlong Emperor and his predecessors, since the Shunzhi Emperor, had identified China and the Qing Empire as the same, and in treaties and diplomatic papers the Qing Empire called itself "China". The Qianlong Emperor rejected earlier ideas that only Han could be subjects of China and only Han land could be considered as part of China, so he redefined China as multiethnic, saying in 1755 that "there exists a view of China (zhongxia), according to which non-Han people cannot become China's subjects and their land cannot be integrated into the territory of China. This does not represent our dynasty's understanding of China, but is instead that of the earlier Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties."
The Qianlong Emperor rejected the views of Han officials who said Xinjiang was not part of China and that he should not conquer it, putting forth the view that China was multiethnic and did not just refer to Han. The Qianlong Emperor compared his achievements with that of the Han and Tang ventures into Central Asia.
Han Chinese farmers were resettled from north China by the Qing government in the area along the Liao River in order to restore the land to cultivation. Wasteland was reclaimed by Han squatters in addition to other Han people who rented land from Manchu landlords. Despite officially prohibiting Han settlement on the Manchu and Mongol lands, by the 18th century the Qing government decided to settle Han refugees from northern China who were suffering from famine, floods, and drought into Manchuria and Inner Mongolia. Due to this, Han people farmed 500,000 hectares in Manchuria and tens of thousands of hectares in Inner Mongolia by the 1780s. The Qianlong Emperor allowed Han peasants suffering from drought to move into Manchuria despite him issuing edicts in favor of banning them from 1740-76. Han tenant farmers rented or even claimed title to land from the "imperial estates" and Manchu Bannerlands in the area. Besides moving into the Liao area in southern Manchuria, the path linking Jinzhou, Fengtian, Tieling, Changchun, Hulun, and Ningguta was settled by Han people during the Qianlong Emperor's reign, and Han people were the majority in urban areas of Manchuria by 1800. To increase the Imperial Treasury's revenue, the Qing government sold lands along the Sungari which were previously exclusively for Manchus to Han Chinese at the beginning of the Daoguang Emperor's reign, and Han people filled up most of Manchuria's towns by the 1840s, according to Abbé Huc.
In his later years, the Qianlong Emperor became spoiled with power and glory, disillusioned and complacent in his reign, and started placing his trust in corrupt officials such as Yu Minzhong and Heshen.
As Heshen was the highest ranked minister and most favoured by the Qianlong Emperor at the time, the day-to-day governance of the country was left in his hands, while the emperor himself indulged in the arts, luxuries and literature. When Heshen was executed by the Jiaqing Emperor, the Qing government discovered that Heshen's personal fortune exceeded that of the Qing Empire's depleted treasury, amounting to 900 million silver taels, the total of 12 years of Treasury surplus of the Qing imperial court.
The Qianlong Emperor began his reign with about 33.95 million silver taels in Treasury surplus. At the peak of his reign, around 1775, even with further tax cuts, the treasury surplus still reached 73.9 million silver taels, a record unmatched by his predecessors, the Kangxi and Yongzheng emperors, both of whom had implemented remarkable tax cut policies.
However, due to numerous factors such as long term embezzlement and corruption by officials, frequent expeditions to the south, huge palace constructions, many war and rebellion campaigns as well as his own extravagant lifestyle, all of these cost the treasury a total of 150.2 million silver taels. This, coupled with his senior age and the lack of political reforms, ushered the beginning of the gradual decline and eventual demise of the Qing Empire, casting a shadow over his glorious and brilliant political life.
During the mid-18th century, European powers began to pressure for increases in the already burgeoning foreign trade and for outposts on the Chinese coast, demands which the aging Qianlong emperor resisted. In 1793 King George III sent a large-scale delegation to present their requests directly to the emperor in Beijing, headed by George Macartney, one of the country's most seasoned diplomats. The British sent a sample of trade goods that they intended to sell in China; this was misinterpreted as tribute that was adjudged to be of low quality.
Historians both in China and abroad long presented the failure of the mission to achieve its goals as a symbol of China's refusal to change and inability to modernize. They explain the refusal first on the fact that interaction with foreign kingdoms was limited to neighbouring tributary states. Furthermore, the worldviews on the two sides were incompatible, China holding entrenched beliefs that China was the "central kingdom". However, after the publication in the 1990s of a fuller range of archival documents concerning the visit, these claims have been challenged. Some assert that China's present day autonomy and successful modernization put the Qianlong Emperor's actions in a new light. One historian summed the newly revised view by characterizing the emperor and his court as "clearly clever and competent political operators". They acted within the formal claims of Qing claims to universal rule, but also simply reacted prudently by placating the British with unspecified promises in order to avoid military conflicts and loss of trade.
Macartney was granted an audience with the Qianlong Emperor on two days, the second of which coincided with the emperor's 82nd birthday. There is continued debate about the nature of the audience and what level of ceremonials were performed. Macartney wrote that he resisted demands that the British trade ambassadors kneel and perform the kowtow and debate continues as to what exactly occurred, differing opinions recorded by Qing courtiers and British delegates.
Qianlong gave Macartney a letter for the British king stating the reasons that he would not grant Macartney's requests:
Yesterday your Ambassador petitioned my Ministers to memorialise me regarding your trade with China, but his proposal is not consistent with our dynastic usage and cannot be entertained. Hitherto, all European nations, including your own country's barbarian merchants, have carried on their trade with our Celestial Empire at Canton. Such has been the procedure for many years, although our Celestial Empire possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product within its own borders.
Your request for a small island near Chusan, where your merchants may reside and goods be warehoused, arises from your desire to develop trade... Consider, moreover, that England is not the only barbarian land which wishes to establish... trade with our Empire: supposing that other nations were all to imitate your evil example and beseech me to present them each and all with a site for trading purposes, how could I possibly comply? This also is a flagrant infringement of the usage of my Empire and cannot possibly be entertained.
Hitherto, the barbarian merchants of Europe have had a definite locality assigned to them at Aomen for residence and trade, and have been forbidden to encroach an inch beyond the limits assigned to that locality.... If these restrictions were withdrawn, friction would inevitably occur between the Chinese and your barbarian subjects...
Regarding your nation's worship of the Lord of Heaven, it is the same religion as that of other European nations. Ever since the beginning of history, sage Emperors and wise rulers have bestowed on China a moral system and inculcated a code, which from time immemorial has been religiously observed by the myriads of my subjects. There has been no hankering after heterodox doctrines. Even the European (missionary) officials in my capital are forbidden to hold intercourse with Chinese subjects...
The letter was preserved in archives but was largely unknown to the public until 1914.
Macartney's conclusions in his memoirs were widely disseminated:
The Empire of China is an old, crazy, first-rate Man of War, which a fortunate succession of able and vigilant officers have contrived to keep afloat for these hundred and fifty years past, and to overawe their neighbours merely by her bulk and appearance. But whenever an insufficient man happens to have the command on deck, adieu to the discipline and safety of the ship. She may, perhaps, not sink outright; she may drift some time as a wreck, and will then be dashed to pieces on the shore; but she can never be rebuilt on the old bottom.
Emperor Qianlong's skepticism toward the British Empire would later prove prophetic. After Great Britain began importing Chinese tea, the balance of trade no longer favored Britain, and the empire came up with a strategy to force China to become a market for a good that British traders could sell as the Qing Dynasty's trade policy only allowed their merchants to accept silver as payment for tea exports. British traders would be responsible for smuggling large quantities of opium to southern China, causing a national addiction crisis and resulting in two wars.
A Dutch embassy arrived at the Qianlong Emperor's court in 1795, which would turn out to be the last time any European appeared before the Qing imperial court within the context of traditional Chinese imperial foreign relations.
Representing Dutch and Dutch East India Company interests, Isaac Titsingh traveled to Beijing in 1794–95 for celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the Qianlong Emperor's reign. The Titsingh delegation also included the Dutch-American Andreas Everardus van Braam Houckgeest, whose detailed description of this embassy to the Qing court was soon after published in the United States and Europe. Titsingh's French translator, Chrétien-Louis-Joseph de Guignes, published his own account of the Titsingh mission in 1808. Voyage a Pékin, Manille et l'Ile de France provided an alternate perspective and a useful counterpoint to other reports that were then circulating. Titsingh himself died before he could publish his version of events.
In contrast to Macartney, Isaac Titsingh, the Dutch and VOC emissary in 1795 did not refuse to kowtow. In the year following Mccartney's rebuff, Titsingh and his colleagues were much feted by the Chinese because of what was construed as seemly compliance with conventional court etiquette.
In October 1795, the Qianlong Emperor officially announced that in the spring of the following year he would voluntarily abdicate his throne and pass the throne to his son. It was said that the Qianlong Emperor had made a promise during the year of his ascension not to rule longer than his grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor, who had reigned for 61 years.
The Qianlong Emperor anticipated moving out of the Hall of Mental Cultivation (Yangxindian) in the Forbidden City. The hall had been conventionally dedicated for the exclusive use of the reigning sovereign, and in 1771 the emperor ordered the beginning of construction on what was ostensibly intended as his retirement residence in another part of the Forbidden City: a lavish, two-acre walled retreat called the "Palace of Tranquil Longevity (Ningshou Palace)", which is today more commonly known as the "Qianlong Garden". The complex, completed in 1776, is currently undergoing a ten-year restoration led by the Palace Museum in Beijing and the World Monuments Fund (WMF). The first of the restored apartments, the Qianlong Emperor's Juanqinzhai, or "Studio of Exhaustion From Diligent Service," began an exhibition tour of the United States in 2010.
The Qianlong Emperor relinquished the throne at the age of 85, after almost 61 years on the throne, to his son, the 36-year-old Jiaqing Emperor, in 1796. For the next three years, he held the title "Taishang Huang (or Emperor Emeritus)" (太上皇) even though he continued to hold on to power and the Jiaqing Emperor ruled only in name. He never moved into his retirement suites in the Qianlong Garden. He died in 1799.
This section does not cite any sources. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A legend, popularised in fiction, says that the Qianlong Emperor was the son of Chen Shiguan (陳世倌), a Han Chinese official from Haining County, Zhejiang Province. In his choice of heir to the throne, the Kangxi Emperor required not only that the heir be able to govern the empire well but that the heir's son be of no less calibre, thus ensuring the Manchus' everlasting reign over China. The son of Yinzhen, the Kangxi Emperor's fourth son, was a weakling so Yinzhen surreptitiously arranged for his daughter to be exchanged for Chen Shiguan's son, who became the favourite grandson of the Kangxi Emperor. Yinzhen succeeded his father and became the Yongzheng Emperor, while his "son", Hongli, succeeded him in turn as the Qianlong Emperor. During his reign, the Qianlong Emperor went on inspection tours to southern China and stayed in Chen Shiguan's house in Haining, where he wrote calligraphy. He also frequently issued imperial edicts to waive off taxes from Haining County.
However, there are major problems with this story. First, the Yongzheng Emperor's eldest surviving son, Hongshi, was only seven when Hongli was born, far too young to make the drastic choice of replacing a child of imperial birth with an outsider (and risking disgrace if not death). Second, the Yongzheng Emperor had three other princes who survived to adulthood and had the potential to ascend the throne. Indeed, since Hongshi was the son forced to commit suicide, it would have been far more logical for him to be the adopted son, if any of them were.
Stories about the Qianlong Emperor's six inspection tours to southern China in disguise as a commoner have been a popular topic for many generations. In total, he visited southern China six times – the same number of times as his grandfather, the Kangxi Emperor.
- Father: Yinzhen, the Yongzheng Emperor (世宗 胤禛; 13 December 1678 – 8 October 1735)
- Mother: Empress Xiaoshengxian, of the Niohuru clan (孝聖憲皇后 鈕祜祿氏; 12 January 1692 – 2 March 1777)
- Grandfather: Lingzhu (凌柱; 1664–1754), served as a fourth rank military official (四品典儀), and held the title of a first class duke (一等公)
- Consorts and Issue:
- Empress Xiaoxianchun, of the Fuca clan (孝賢純皇后 富察氏; 28 March 1712 – 8 April 1748)
- First daughter (3 November 1728 – 14 February 1730)
- Yonglian, Crown Prince Duanhui (端慧皇太子 永璉; 9 August 1730 – 23 November 1738), second son
- Princess Hejing of the First Rank (固倫和敬公主; 31 July 1731 – 30 September 1792), third daughter
- Married Septeng Baljur (色布騰巴爾珠爾; d. 1775) of the Khorchin Borjigit clan in April/May 1747, and had issue (one son, four daughters)
- Yongcong, Prince Zhe of the First Rank (哲親王 永琮; 27 May 1746 – 29 January 1748), seventh son
- Empress, of the Nara clan (皇后 輝發那拉氏; 11 March 1718 – 19 August 1766)
- Yongji, Prince of the Third Rank (貝勒 永璂; 7 June 1752 – 17 March 1776), 12th son
- Fifth daughter (23 July 1753 – 1 June 1755)
- Yongjing (永璟; 22 January 1756 – 7 September 1757), 13th son
- Empress Xiaoyichun, of the Weigiya clan (孝儀純皇后 魏佳氏; 23 October 1727 – 28 February 1775)
- Princess Hejing of the First Rank (固倫和靜公主; 10 August 1756 – 9 February 1775), seventh daughter
- Married Lhawang Dorji (拉旺多爾濟; 1754–1816) of the Khalkha Borjigit clan in August/September 1770
- Yonglu (永璐; 31 August 1757 – 3 May 1760), 14th son
- Princess Heke of the Second Rank (和碩和恪公主; 17 August 1758 – 14 December 1780), ninth daughter
- Married Jalantai (札蘭泰; d. 1788) of the Manchu Uya clan in August/September 1772
- Miscarriage at eight months (13 November 1759)
- Yongyan, the Jiaqing Emperor (仁宗 顒琰; 13 November 1760 – 2 September 1820), 15th son
- 16th son (13 January 1763 – 6 May 1765)
- Yonglin, Prince Qingxi of the First Rank (慶僖親王 永璘; 17 June 1766 – 25 April 1820), 17th son
- Princess Hejing of the First Rank (固倫和靜公主; 10 August 1756 – 9 February 1775), seventh daughter
- Imperial Noble Consort Huixian, of the Gaogiya clan (慧賢皇貴妃 高佳氏; 1711 – 25 February 1745)
- Imperial Noble Consort Zhemin, of the Fuca clan (哲憫皇貴妃 富察氏; d. 20 August 1735)
- Imperial Noble Consort Shujia, of the Korean booi aha Gingiya clan (Kim clan or Jin clan) (淑嘉皇貴妃 金佳氏; 14 September 1713 – 17 December 1755)
格格→貴人→嘉嬪→嘉妃→嘉貴妃 Her family was later moved into a Manchu banner. Her original surname Jin (Kim) was Manchufied to Gingiya.
- Yongcheng, Prince Lüduan of the First Rank (履端親王 永珹; 21 February 1739 – 5 April 1777), fourth son
- Yongxuan, Prince Yishen of the First Rank (儀慎親王 永璇; 31 August 1746 – 1 September 1832), eighth son
- Ninth son (2 August 1748 – 11 June 1749)
- Yongxing, Prince Chengzhe of the First Rank (成哲親王 永瑆; 22 March 1752 – 10 May 1823), 11th son
- Imperial Noble Consort Chunhui, of the Su clan (純惠皇貴妃 蘇氏; 13 June 1713 – 2 June 1760)
- Yongzhang, Prince Xun of the Second Rank (循郡王 永璋; 15 July 1735 – 26 August 1760), third son
- Yongrong, Prince Zhizhuang of the First Rank (質莊親王 永瑢; 28 January 1744 – 13 June 1790), sixth son
- Princess Hejia of the Second Rank (和碩和嘉公主; 24 December 1745 – 29 October 1767), fourth daughter
- Married Fulong'an (福隆安; 1746–1784) of the Manchu Fuca clan on 10 May 1760, and had issue (one son)
- Imperial Noble Consort Qinggong, of the Lu clan (慶恭皇貴妃 陸氏; 12 August 1724 – 21 August 1774)
- Noble Consort Xin, of the Daigiya clan (忻貴妃 戴佳氏; 26 June 1737 – 28 May 1764)
- Sixth daughter (24 August 1755 – 27 September 1758)
- Eighth daughter (16 January 1758 – 17 June 1767)
- Obstructed labour or miscarriage at eight months (28 May 1764)
- Noble Consort Yu, of the Keliyete clan (愉貴妃 珂里葉特氏; 15 June 1714 – 9 July 1792)
- Noble Consort Ying, of the Barin clan (穎貴妃 巴林氏; 7 March 1731 – 14 March 1800)
- Noble Consort Xun, of the Irgen Gioro clan (循貴妃 伊爾根覺羅氏; 29 October 1758 – 10 January 1798)
- Noble Consort Wan, of the Chen clan (婉貴妃 陳氏; 1 February 1717 – 10 March 1807)
- Consort Shu, of the Yehe Nara clan (舒妃 葉赫那拉氏; 7 July 1728 – 4 July 1777), fourth cousin once removed
- Tenth son (12 June 1751 – 7 July 1753)
- Consort Yu (Qing Dynasty), of the Borjigit clan (豫妃 博爾濟吉特氏; 12 February 1730 – 31 January 1774)
- Miscarriage (1759 or 1760)
- Consort Rong, of the Xojam clan (容妃 和卓氏; 11 October 1734 – 24 May 1788), personal name Fatime (法蒂瑪)
- Consort Dun, of the Wang clan (惇妃 汪氏; 27 March 1746 – 6 March 1806)
- Consort Fang, of the Chen clan (芳妃 陳氏; d. 20 September 1801)
- Consort Jin (Qianlong), of the Fuca clan (晉妃 富察氏; d. 19 January 1823)
- Concubine Yi, of the Huang clan (儀嬪 黃氏; d. 1 November 1736)
- Concubine Yi, of the Bo clan (怡嬪 柏氏; d. 30 June 1757)
- Concubine Shen, of the Bai'ergesi clan (慎嬪 拜爾葛斯氏; d. 2 July 1764)
- Concubine Xun, of the Huoshuote clan (恂嬪 霍碩特氏; d. 24 September 1761)
- Concubine Cheng, of the Niohuru clan (誠嬪 鈕祜祿氏; d. 29 May 1784)
- Concubine Gong, of the Lin clan (恭嬪 林氏; d. 16 January 1806)
- Noble Lady Shun, of the Niohuru clan (順貴人; d. 1788)
- Empress Xiaoxianchun, of the Fuca clan (孝賢純皇后 富察氏; 28 March 1712 – 8 April 1748)
In fiction and popular cultureEdit
- Portrayed by Zhang Tielin in My Fair Princess (1998)
- Portrayed by Nie Yuan in World granary (天下粮仓) (2001), Story of Yanxi Palace (2018) and Yanxi Palace: Princess Adventures (2019)
- Portrayed by Ti Lung in My Fair Princess III (2003)
- Portrayed by Chiu Hsinchih in New My Fair Princess (2011)
- Portrayed by Wang Wenjie in Empresses in the Palace (2011)
- Portrayed by Chen Xu in Palace II (2012)
- Portrayed by Kent Tong in Palace 3: The Lost Daughter (2014)
- Portrayed by KK Cheung in Succession War (2018)
- Portrayed by Wallace Huo in Ruyi's Royal Love in the Palace (2018)
Works by the Qianlong EmperorEdit
- Ch'ien Lung (emperor of China) (1810). The conquest of the Miao-tse, an imperial poem ... entitled A choral song of harmony for the first part of the Spring [tr.] by S. Weston, from the Chinese. Translated by Stephen Weston. London, England: Printed & Sold by C. & R. Baldwin, New Bridge Street, Black Friars. Retrieved 24 April 2014.
- The Qianlong era name, however, started only on 12 February 1736, the first day of that lunar year. 8 February 1796 was the last day of the lunar year known in Chinese as the 60th year of Qianlong.
- Jacobs, Andrew. "Dusting Off a Serene Jewel Box," The New York Times. 31 December 2008.
- Æneas Anderson, A Narrative of the British Embassy to China, in the Years 1792, 1793, and 1794; Containing the Various Circumstances of the Embassy, with Accounts of Customs and Manners of the Chinese (London: J. Debrett, 1795) p. 262.
- Wei Yuan, 聖武記 Military history of the Qing Dynasty, vol.4. “計數十萬戶中，先痘死者十之四，繼竄入俄羅斯哈薩克者十之二，卒殲於大兵者十之三。”
- Perdue 2005, p. 287.
- Clarke 2004, p. 37.
- Theobald, Ulrich (2013). War Finance and Logistics in Late Imperial China: A Study of the Second Jinchuan Campaign (1771–1776). BRILL. p. 21. ISBN 978-9004255678. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
- "Manchu hymn chanted at the occasion of the victory over the Jinchuan Rebels". Manchu Studies Group. 18 December 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2013.
- Man-Cheong, Iona (2004). Class of 1761. Stanford University Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0804767132. Retrieved 24 April 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Schmidt, J. D. (2013). Harmony Garden: The Life, Literary Criticism, and Poetry of Yuan Mei (1716-1798). Routledge. p. 444. ISBN 978-1136862250. Retrieved 24 April 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Schmidt, Jerry D. (2013). The Poet Zheng Zhen (1806-1864) and the Rise of Chinese Modernity. BRILL. p. 394. ISBN 978-9004252295. Retrieved 24 April 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Theobald, Ulrich (2013). War Finance and Logistics in Late Imperial China: A Study of the Second Jinchuan Campaign (1771–1776). BRILL. p. 32. ISBN 978-9004255678. Retrieved 24 April 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Chang, Michael G. (2007). A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring & the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680-1785. Volume 287 of Harvard East Asian monographs (illustrated ed.). Harvard University Asia Center. p. 435. ISBN 978-0674024540. Retrieved 24 April 2014.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Dabringhaus, Sabine (2011). "Staatsmann, Feldherr und Dichter". Damals (in German). Vol. 43 no. 1. pp. 16–24.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Giersch, Charles Patterson (2006). Asian borderlands: the transformation of Qing China's Yunnan frontier. Harvard University Press. p. 68. ISBN 0-674-02171-1.
- Hall, D.G.E. (1960). Burma (3rd ed.). Hutchinson University Library. pp. 27–29. ISBN 978-1-4067-3503-1.
- Hall, pp. 27–29
- Dai, p.145
- Schirokauer, Conrad & Clark, Donald N. Modern East Asia: A Brief History, 2nd ed. pp. 35. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston & New York. 2008 ISBN 978-0-618-92070-9.
- Millward, James A. (1998). Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864. Stanford University Press. p. 124. ISBN 0804797927.
- Newby, L. J. (2005). The Empire And the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations With Khoqand C1760-1860 (illustrated ed.). BRILL. p. 39. ISBN 9004145508.
- Wang, Ke (2017). "Between the "Ummah" and "China"：The Qing Dynasty's Rule over Xinjiang Uyghur Society" (PDF). Journal of Intercultural Studies. Kobe University. 48: 204.
- Millward, James A. (2007). Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang (illustrated ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0231139243.
- Millward, James A. (2007). Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang (illustrated ed.). Columbia University Press. p. 109. ISBN 978-0231139243.
- Millward, James A. (1998). Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864. Stanford University Press. pp. 206–207. ISBN 0804797927.
- Jonathan D. Spence. The Search for Modern China. (New York: Norton, 3rd, 2013 ISBN 9780393934519), p. 98.
- Freer Sackler Archived 16 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- Holzworth, Gerald (12 November 2005). "China: the Three Emperors 1662–1795". The Royal Academy of Arts. Archived from the original on 12 December 2005.
- Spence, Jonathan (Winter 2003–2004). "Portrait of an Emperor, Qianlong: Ruler, Connoisseur, Scholar" (PDF). ICON Magazine / WMF. World Monuments Fund. pp. 24–30. Retrieved 12 July 2011.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Alexander Woodside, "The Ch’ien-Lung Reign," in Peterson, Willard J. (December 2002). The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge University Press. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6.
- Guy (1987), p. 167.
- Guy (1987), p. 166.
- Elliott (2000), p. 615-617.
- Elliott (2009), p. 5.
- Elliott (2009), p. 57.
- Elliott (2009), p. 145.
- Elisabeth Benard, "The Qianlong Emperor and Tibetan Buddhism," in Dunnell & Elliott & Foret & Millward 2004, pp. 123-4.
- Lopez 1999, p. 20.
- Berger 2003, p. 35.
- Berger 2003, p. 34.
- Jocelyn M. N. Marinescu (2008). Defending Christianity in China: The Jesuit Defense of Christianity in the "Lettres Edifiantes Et Curieuses" & "Ruijianlu" in Relation to the Yongzheng Proscription of 1724. ProQuest. pp. 29, 33, 136, 240, 265. ISBN 978-0-549-59712-4.
- Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism And Islam On The Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 244–245. ISBN 9780812242379.
- Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism And Islam On The Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 246–247. ISBN 9780812242379.
- Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism And Islam On The Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 248–249. ISBN 9780812242379.
- Elverskog, Johan (2010). Buddhism And Islam On The Silk Road. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 250–251. ISBN 9780812242379.
- Rawski, Evelyn The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions (University of California Press, 1998) pgs. 23 & 24
- Greenwood, Kevin (2013), Yonghegong: Imperial Universalism And The Art And Architecture Of Beijing's "Lama Temple"
- 藏品/绘画/王致诚乾隆射箭图屏 Archived 25 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- Le Bas, Jacques-Philippe (1770). "A Victory Banquet Given by the Emperor for the Distinguished Officers and Soldiers". World Digital Library (in French). Xinjiang, China.
- Jacques Gernet (31 May 1996). A History of Chinese Civilization. Cambridge University Press. pp. 522. ISBN 978-0-521-49781-7. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- "清代延恩侯明朝皇族后裔辩伪考". 理论界. 2012 (1). 2012.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (15 February 2000). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520928848 – via Google Books.
- Elliott (2001), pp. 184-186.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (15 February 2000). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520928848 – via Google Books.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (15 February 2000). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520928848 – via Google Books.
- Elliott, Mark C. (25 September 2018). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804746847 – via Google Books.
- Elliott, Mark C. (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China (illustrated, reprint ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 84. ISBN 0804746842.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (2000). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. p. 128. ISBN 0520928849.
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (2000). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. pp. 103–5. ISBN 0520928849.
- https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/84183523.html. Missing or empty
- http://yukunid.blog.sohu.com/16777875.html. Missing or empty
- "Gun Control, Qing Style". 9 March 2013.
- 孔氏宗亲网-孔子后裔的网上家园-清朝对圣门各贤裔的封赠 Archived 6 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine
- Qin ding da Qing hui dian (Jiaqing chao)0. 1818. pp. 1084–.
- 不詳 (21 August 2015). 新清史. 朔雪寒. GGKEY:ZFQWEX019E4.
- Sturgeon, Donald. "曝書亭集 : 卷三十三 - 中國哲學書電子化計劃". ctext.org.
- "什么是 五经博士 意思详解 - 淘大白". Archived from the original on 23 June 2016. Retrieved 18 April 2016.
- 王士禎 (3 September 2014). 池北偶談. 朔雪寒. GGKEY:ESB6TEXXDCT.
- 徐錫麟; 錢泳 (10 September 2014). 熙朝新語. 朔雪寒. GGKEY:J62ZFNAA1NF.
- "【从世袭翰林院五经博士到奉祀官】_三民儒家_新浪博客". blog.sina.com.cn.
- H.S. Brunnert; V.V. Hagelstrom (15 April 2013). Present Day Political Organization of China. Routledge. pp. 493–494. ISBN 978-1-135-79795-9.
- "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 25 April 2016. Retrieved 20 May 2016.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- Brunnert, I. S. (Ippolit Semenovich); Gagelstrom, V. V.; Kolesov, N. F. (Nikolai Fedorovich); Bielchenko, Andrei Terentevich; Moran, Edward Eugene. "Present day political organization of China". New York : Paragon – via Internet Archive.
- H.S. Brunnert; V.V. Hagelstrom (15 April 2013). Present Day Political Organization of China. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-79794-2.
- "李永芳将军的简介 李永芳的后代-历史趣闻网". Archived from the original on 3 December 2017. Retrieved 30 June 2016.
- 曹德全：首个投降后金的明将李永芳 — 抚顺七千年(wap版) Archived 7 October 2016 at the Wayback Machine
- Evelyn S. Rawski (15 November 1998). The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. University of California Press. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-520-92679-0.
- LI SHIH-YAO FANG CHAO-YING Dartmouth College
- "Wayback Machine". 11 August 2016. Archived from the original on 11 August 2016.
- Zhao 2006, p. 7.
- Zhao 2006, p. 4.
- Zhao 2006, pp. 11-12.
- Millward 1998, p. 25.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 504. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 505. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 506. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Scharping 1998, p. 18.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 507. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 508. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Reardon-Anderson, James (2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 509. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- "Qianlong(in Chinese text)". hudong.com. Retrieved 24 October 2008.
- Palace Museum: Qianlong Emperor (乾隆皇帝) Archived 24 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine
- Harrison, Henrietta (2017). "The Qianlong Emperor's Letter to George III and the Early Twentieth Century Origins of Ideas About Traditional China's Foreign Relations". American Historical Review. 122 (3): 680–701. doi:10.1093/ahr/122.3.680.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- For a conventional European perspective of the audience question, see Alain Peyrefitte, The Immobile Empire, translated by Jon Rotschild (New York: Knopf: Distributed by Random House, 1992.)
For a critique, see James L. Hevia, Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of 1793.(Durham: Duke University Press, 1995).
For a discussion on Hevia's book, see exchange between Hevia and Joseph W. Esherick in Modern China 24, no. 2 (1998).
- "Qinglong's Letter to King George". academics.wellesley.edu. translated by Edmond Backhouse and J. O. P. Bland, in Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), pp. 322-331. Retrieved 28 January 2017.CS1 maint: others (link)
- Harrison (2017), p. 690.
- Robbins, Helen H. (1908). "Our First Ambassador to China: An Account of the Life of George, Earl of Macartney, with Extracts from His Letters, and the Narrative of His Experiences in China, as Told by Himself, 1737-1806". London: John Murray. p. 386. Archived from the original on 6 October 2018. Retrieved 25 October 2008.
- O'Neil, Patricia O. (1995). Missed Opportunities: Late 18th century Chinese Relations with England and the Netherlands. [PhD dissertation, University of Washington]
- Duyvendak, J.J.L. (1937). 'The Last Dutch Embassy to the Chinese Court (1794–1795).' T'oung Pao 33:1–137.
- van Braam Houckgeest, Andreas Everardus. (1797). Voyage de l'ambassade de la Compagnie des Indes Orientales hollandaises vers l'empereur de la Chine, dans les années 1794 et 1795; see also 1798 English translation: An authentic account of the embassy of the Dutch East-India company, to the court of the emperor of China, in the years 1974 and 1795, Vol. I. Archived 15 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- van Braam, An authentic account..., Vol. I (1798 English edition) pp. 283–288.
- World Monuments Fund. "Juanqizhai in the Qianlong Garden". World Monuments Fund. Retrieved 16 July 2011.
- Palace Museum: Jiaqing Emperor (嘉庆皇帝) Archived 22 October 2008 at the Wayback Machine
- Hua, Hsieh Bao (2014). Concubinage and Servitude in Late Imperial China. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0739145166.
- Æneas Anderson, A Narrative of the British Embassy to China, in the Years 1792, 1793, and 1794; Containing the Various Circumstances of the Embassy, with Accounts of Customs and Manners of the Chinese (London: J. Debrett, 1795)
- Berger, Patricia Ann (2003). Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China (illustrated ed.). University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0824825638. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Clarke, Michael Edmund (2004). In the Eye of Power: China and Xinjiang from the Qing Conquest to the 'New Great Game' for Central Asia 1759–2004 (PDF) (Doctoral thesis). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Dept. of International Business & Asian Studies, Griffith University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 July 2011.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Crossley, Pamela Kyle (1999). A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520928848. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Dunnell, Ruth W.; Elliott, Mark C.; Foret, Philippe; Millward, James A (2004). New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. Routledge. ISBN 978-1134362226. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Elliott, Mark C. (2000), "The Limits of Tartary: Manchuria in Imperial and National Geographies" (PDF), Journal of Asian Studies, 59 (3): 603–646, doi:10.2307/2658945, JSTOR 2658945CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- —— (2001). The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804746847. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- —— (2009). Emperor Qianlong: Son of Heaven, Man of the World. New York: Pearson Longman. ISBN 9780321084446.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- de Guignes, Chrétien-Louis-Joseph (1808). Voyage a Pékin, Manille et l'Ile de France. Paris.
- Guy, R. Kent (October 1987). The Emperor's Four Treasures. Harvard University Press. p. 167. ISBN 978-0-674-25115-1.
- Hall, D.G.E. (1960). Burma (3rd edition ed.). Hutchinson University Library. ISBN 978-1-4067-3503-1.
- Liu, Tao Tao; Faure, David (1996). Unity and Diversity: Local Cultures and Identities in China. Hong Kong University Press. ISBN 978-9622094024. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Lopez, Donald S. (1999). Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (reprint, revised ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226493114. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Millward, James A. (1998). Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 (illustrated ed.). Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804729338. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Millward, James A. (2007). Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang (illustrated ed.). Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0231139243. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Newby, L. J. (2005). The Empire And the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations With Khoqand C.1760-1860. Volume 16 of Brill's Inner Asian Library (illustrated ed.). BRILL. ISBN 978-9004145504. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Rawski, Evelyn S. (1998). The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520926790. Retrieved 10 March 2014.
- Perdue, Peter C. (2005). China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia. Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
- Reardon-Anderson, James (October 2000). "Land Use and Society in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia during the Qing Dynasty". Environmental History. 5 (4): 503–530. doi:10.2307/3985584. JSTOR 3985584.
- Robbins, Helen Henrietta Macartney (1908). Our First Ambassador to China: An Account of the Life of George, Earl of Macartney with Extracts from His Letters, and the Narrative of His Experiences in China, as Told by Himself, 1737–1806, from Hitherto Unpublished Correspondence and Documents. London : John Murray. [digitized by University of Hong Kong Libraries, Digital Initiatives, "China Through Western Eyes."
- Scharping, Thomas (1998). "Minorities, Majorities and National Expansion: The History and Politics of Population Development in Manchuria 1610-1993" (PDF). Cologne China Studies Online – Working Papers on Chinese Politics, Economy and Society (Kölner China-Studien Online – Arbeitspapiere zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas) (1). Retrieved 14 August 2014.
- van Braam Houckgeest, Andreas Everardus. (1797). Voyage de l'ambassade de la Compagnie des Indes Orientales hollandaises vers l'empereur de la Chine, dans les années 1794 et 1795. Philadelphia: M.L.E. Moreau de Saint-Méry.
- Van Braam Houckgeest, Andreas Everardus. (1798). An authentic account of the embassy of the Dutch East-India company, to the court of the emperor of China, in the years 1974 and 1795, Vol. I. London : R. Phillips. [digitized by University of Hong Kong Libraries, Digital Initiatives, "China Through Western Eyes."
- Woodside, Alexander. "The Ch’ien-Lung Reign," in Peterson, Willard J. (December 2002). The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge University Press. pp. 230–309. ISBN 978-0-521-24334-6.
- Zhao, Gang (January 2006). "Reinventing China Imperial Qing Ideology and the Rise of Modern Chinese National Identity in the Early Twentieth Century". Modern China. 32 (1): 3–30. doi:10.1177/0097700405282349. JSTOR 20062627.
- Chang, Michael (2007). A court on horseback: imperial touring & the construction of Qing rule, 1680–1785. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center.
- Ho Chuimei, Bennet Bronson. Splendors of China's Forbidden City: The Glorious Reign of Emperor Qianlong. (London: Merrell, in association with The Field Museum, Chicago, 2004). ISBN 1858942039.
- Kahn, Harold L. Monarchy in the Emperor's Eyes: Image and Reality in the Ch'ien-Lung Reign. (Cambridge, Mass.,: Harvard University Press, Harvard East Asian Series, 59, 1971). ISBN 0674582306.
- Kuhn, Philip A. Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990). ISBN 0674821513 (alk. paper).
- James A. Millward, Ruth W. Dunnell, Mark C. Elliot and Philippe Foret. ed., New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. (London; New York: Routledge, 2004). ISBN 0415320062.
- Nancy Berliner, "The Emperor's Private Paradise: Treasures from the Forbidden City" (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2010) ISBN 978-0-87577-221-9.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Qianlong Emperor.|
- Quotations related to Qianlong Emperor at Wikiquote
Qianlong EmperorBorn: 25 September 1711 Died: 7 February 1799
| Emperor of the Qing dynasty
Emperor of China