The "Unavoidably" Burning Yuanmingyuan - An Investigation into the Causes of the Second Burning of the Yuanmingyuan

Yuanmingyuan, Beijing · Ryu Da-jeong · Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University

Introduction

On July 3, 2018, the first day of Sarangbang's 10th China expedition, due to a sudden change in schedule, we visited the Yuanmingyuan, which was originally planned for the second day. Amidst the sweltering heat, we entered the ruins of the Yuanmingyuan to learn more about the Yuanmingyuan that had blazed 150 years ago.

Just before entering the ruins of the Yuanmingyuan, the first thing we saw was the French poet Victor Hugo. An excerpt from a letter he sent in 1861 to a French butler, criticizing the atrocities of the Anglo-French allied forces, stood guard at the entrance of the Yuanmingyuan. One day, two robbers broke into the Yuanmingyuan. One robber looted everything,

and the other set it on fire. As if victory meant possessing everything.

The Yuanmingyuan was extensively looted, and the stolen items

were divided equally between the two victors. We also learned that all of this was associated with the name Elgin. Furthermore, the name Elgin reminded us of the Parthenon.

Just as we did to the Parthenon a day earlier, they destroyed the Yuanmingyuan, only more thoroughly, more beautifully, so that everything

disappeared. Even the treasures of all our cathedrals combined would not compare to that magnificent museum located in the East.

It contained not only artworks but also a great deal of gold and silver. A great achievement! A great haul! The two victors, their pockets full, were still visible.

They returned to Europe, hand in hand, smiling. This is the story of the two robbers. We Europeans are civilized. The Chinese are barbarians to us. This is what the so-called civilized people did to the barbarians.

The destruction of the Yuanmingyuan remains a great regret not only for the Chinese people of that time but for people all over the world and for those living today. Hugo's letter described the Yuanmingyuan as 'a fantasy we can dream of.' Let us investigate why such a fantasy was set ablaze by Elgin.

The Second Opium War, triggered by the Arrow Incident in 1856[1], ended in 1860 with the destruction of the Yuanmingyuan and the signing of the Treaties of Tianjin and Beijing by the Anglo-French forces, resulting in their victory. In this process, China moved away from its traditional world order and faced a new international order. The Second Opium War signaled to China the concepts of international law, international diplomatic order, and a new view of civilization, symbolizing the dominance of Western standards of civilization. It can be seen that China, upon its defeat, began translating international law, established the Zongli Yamen (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and initiated the Self-Strengthening Movement, gradually abandoning the international order based on 'propriety' that it had maintained for thousands of years. The Second Opium War was a conflict that occurred at the intersection of the Chinese order and the Western order. The clash of these two orders led to the downfall of one and the victory of the other. The Chinese order began to disappear from history simultaneously with the burning of the Yuanmingyuan.

The Yuanmingyuan was a place where the emperor conducted state affairs and lived, with highly restricted access and strict adherence to internal regulations (Wang Longzhu, 2015). Such a Yuanmingyuan was reduced to ruins on October 18, 1860, by order of Lord Elgin, the plenipotentiary envoy of Britain. At that time, China could not take any action. Arson is a highly barbaric act, and under international law, arson of cultural heritage is a serious crime. The so-called civilized people came and committed a barbaric crime (Erick, 2015). Why did Lord Elgin, the main perpetrator of the arson at the time, give the order to burn the Yuanmingyuan? With this question in mind, I analyzed the reasons behind Elgin's order to set fire to the Yuanmingyuan on October 18, 1860, by consulting the documents "Yuanmingyuan: Qing Dynasty Archival Materials," "Chouban Yiwu Shimo - Xianfeng Reign (Vol. 7)," "Qing Dynasty Rouyuan Ji," as well as acquired materials from The Times newspaper and the correspondence and diaries of Elgin and Parkes.

Progress of the Second Opium War

To understand the causes of the destruction of the Yuanmingyuan, it is first necessary to outline the course of events. The Second Opium War occurred in two phases: the stage leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Tianjin in 1858, and the subsequent stage leading to the signing of the Treaty of Beijing in 1860. In the process of drafting and ratifying the Treaty of Tianjin, endless discussions ensued regarding when the Qing court would ratify it, where the British, French, American, and Russian forces would exchange the treaty texts, and by what route the diplomatic corps would enter Beijing. Amidst the wrangling between the Qing court and the British and French, the diplomatic mission then in Beijing was taken hostage, and incidents of torture and death of the hostages occurred.

In May 1859, Imperial Commissioner Sengge Rinchen requested the British forces to come to Beitang instead of the Taku forts for the exchange of treaty documents, but the British refused his request. The British forces eventually invaded the Taku forts and were defeated due to Sengge Rinchen's preparations. When the news of the defeat reached Britain, public opinion and Parliament began to criticize the incompetence of Minister-Plenipotentiary Elgin, the highest official in charge of China, and Elgin could not escape these criticisms. Although this appeared to be a victory for China, the victory at Taku ultimately led to the tragedy of the Yuanmingyuan, as the crushing defeat at Taku instead bolstered support for Elgin's hardline stance (Wang Longzhu, 2015). Thus, Elgin adopted a hardline policy following this incident and judged that military pressure would be more effective than diplomatic negotiation (Wang Tian-gen, 2014).

In August of that year, London dispatched Elgin, who captured Taku on the 21st and immediately proceeded north, capturing Tianjin on the 26th. In September, a battle was fought at Baliqiao near Tongzhou, where the Qing forces were quickly defeated by the modernized military power of the Anglo-French allied forces. On September 25th, the allied forces issued an ultimatum demanding the release of captured prisoners, but when Prince Gong did not comply, the Anglo-French allied forces began their advance towards Beijing on October 3rd. On the 6th, the Anglo-French allied forces occupied the Yuanmingyuan, and on the 7th, they set fire to nearby civilian houses and some parts of the Yuanmingyuan. After the release of the British envoy Parkes, they withdrew from the Yuanmingyuan on the 8th. On the 12th, the British, French, and American envoys threatened to bombard Beijing if Prince Gong did not enter the city and exchange the treaty documents by the 13th. On the 15th, Prince Gong sent a letter inquiring about the timing of the treaty exchange, and on the 17th, a reply was received stating that the Qing court would pay 300,000 taels to Britain for the mistreatment and death of the hostages and would destroy the Yuanmingyuan. It was then stated that a reply should be given by the 20th, the indemnity paid by the 23rd, and the treaty exchanged on the 23rd. Immediately thereafter, on the 18th, the Yuanmingyuan began to burn, and Elgin ordered the arson without any consultation with the British government or his ally, France.

Regarding the discrepancies in the records at the time, the Chinese document "Weng Tonghe Diary" states that the Yuanmingyuan would be destroyed if the indemnity was not paid immediately, while "Yuanmingyuan: Qing Dynasty Archival Materials" states that the conditions for both the indemnity and the destruction of the Yuanmingyuan were presented simultaneously. Although the records differ, considering the British demand for indemnity payment by the 22nd and the arson on the 18th, I judge the latter record (Prince Gong's memorial) to be more accurate.

From the beginning of the Second Opium War to the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, the overwhelming military power of the Anglo-French forces and the helplessness of the Qing court are evident.

The Yuanmingyuan was a place where the emperor handled state affairs and lived, with highly restricted access and strict adherence to internal regulations (Wang Longzhu 2015). This Yuanmingyuan was reduced to ruins on October 18, 1860, by order of Lord Elgin, the British Plenipotentiary Envoy. At that time, China was unable to take any action. The arson was an extremely barbaric act, and under international law, arson of cultural heritage is a grave offense. So-called civilized people came and committed barbaric crimes (Erick 2015). Why did Lord Elgin, the main perpetrator of the arson, give the order to burn the Yuanmingyuan? With these questions in mind, I analyzed the causes behind Elgin's order to set fire to the Yuanmingyuan on October 18, 1860, through the documents in "Yuanmingyuan: Qing Dynasty Archival Materials," "Chouban Yiwu Shimo: Xianfeng Reign (Vol. 7)," "Qing Dynasty Rouyuan Ji," as well as the acquired materials from The Times newspaper and the letters and diaries of Elgin and Parkes.

Course of Events of the Second Opium War

To understand the causes of the destruction of the Yuanmingyuan, it is first necessary to summarize the course of events. The Second Opium War occurred in two stages: the first stage up to the conclusion of the "Treaty of Tianjin" in 1858, and the second stage up to the conclusion of the "Convention of Beijing" in 1860. In the process of drafting and ratifying the "Treaty of Tianjin," endless discussions ensued regarding when the Qing court would ratify it, where Britain, France, the United States, and Russia would exchange the treaty texts, and by which route the diplomatic corps would enter Beijing. Amidst the wrangling between the Qing court and Britain and France, a situation arose where the diplomatic mission then in Beijing was taken hostage, and incidents of torture and even death of the hostages occurred.

In May 1859, Imperial Commissioner Sheng Bao requested that if the British wished to exchange the treaty documents, they should come to Beitang instead of the Taku forts, but the British refused his request. The British forces eventually invaded the Taku forts and, due to Sheng Bao's defensive measures, were defeated. When the news of the defeat reached Britain, public opinion and Parliament began to criticize the incompetence of Lord Elgin, the chief representative in China, and Elgin could not escape this criticism. Although this appeared to be a victory for China, the victory at Taku ultimately led to the tragedy of the Yuanmingyuan, as the defeat at Taku actually supported Elgin's hardline stance (Wang Longzhu 2015). Thus, Elgin adopted a hardline approach following this incident, deciding that military pressure would be more effective than diplomatic negotiation (Wang Tiangen 2014).

In August of that year, London dispatched Elgin, who occupied Taku on the 21st and immediately proceeded north, capturing Tianjin on the 26th. In September, a battle was fought at Baliqiao near Tongzhou, where the Qing forces could not hold out for long against the modernized Anglo-French allied forces and were defeated. On September 25, the allied forces sent an ultimatum demanding the release of captured prisoners, but when Prince Gong did not comply, the Anglo-French allied forces began their advance towards Beijing on October 3. On the 6th, the Anglo-French allied forces occupied the Yuanmingyuan, and on the 7th, they set fire to nearby civilian houses and several locations within the Yuanmingyuan. Upon the release of the British consul Parkes, they withdrew from the Yuanmingyuan on the 8th. On the 12th, the British, French, and American consuls threatened to bombard Beijing if Prince Gong did not enter Beijing to exchange the treaty documents by the 13th. On the 15th, Prince Gong sent a letter inquiring about the timing of the treaty exchange, and on the 17th, a reply was received stating that the Qing court would pay 300,000 taels to Britain for the mistreatment and death of the hostages and would destroy the Yuanmingyuan. It was then stated that a reply should be given by the 20th, the indemnity paid by the 22nd, and the treaty exchange conducted on the 23rd. Subsequently, on the 18th, the Yuanmingyuan began to burn, and Elgin carried out the arson without any consultation with the British government or the allied French forces.

Regarding the discrepancies in the records at the time, the Chinese document "Weng Tonghe's Diary" states that the Yuanmingyuan would be destroyed if the indemnity was not paid immediately, while "Yuanmingyuan: Qing Dynasty Archival Materials" presents the conditions of both indemnity payment and Yuanmingyuan's destruction simultaneously. Although recorded differently, given the British letter demanding indemnity payment by the 22nd and the arson on the 18th, I judge the latter record (Prince Gong's memorial) to be more accurate.

From the beginning of the Second Opium War to the incident of the Yuanmingyuan's arson, the Qing court's helplessness can be observed, largely based on the overwhelming military power of the Anglo-French forces.

Investigating the Causes of the Second Burning of the Yuanmingyuan

Wang Kaishi, in his compilation of documents regarding the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, categorizes the reasons into five main arguments. The first argument is 'to conceal the crime.' This argument suggests that the fire was set to cover up the fact that the Anglo-French allied forces looted numerous gold and silver treasures from October 6th to 8th, 1860. However, arson is a more unacceptable act than looting, making it difficult to prove that a greater crime was committed to conceal the crime of looting. The second argument is 'to conceal the crime and punish Emperor Xianfeng.' Scholars who hold this view have addressed the essence of the Yuanmingyuan arson incident, but the argument of concealing the crime remains dominant, and there is insufficient analysis as to why Emperor Xianfeng was punished through arson. The third is the 'military action theory,' which explains it as a natural military act that occurred during the military conflict between the Anglo-French allied forces and the Qing army. This argument explains why the Anglo-French allied forces targeted the Yuanmingyuan but has the limitation of not answering why Elgin ordered the Yuanmingyuan to be burned. The fourth is the argument that it was because Emperor Xianfeng resorted to the base tactic of torturing and killing hostages. Finally, there is the argument that wicked commoners committed arson. However, according to historical records, while there is evidence of bandits entering the Yuanmingyuan and looting, no evidence has been found to suggest they led the arson.

Elgin's unilateral action and his personal desires: First, it is necessary to distinguish between the first and second burnings by the British forces. Currently, the first and second burning incidents are often conflated in academic circles, which further complicates the investigation into the truth of Elgin's order, i.e., the second burning incident (Pei Guangqiang, 2014). Research suggests that the first burning was committed jointly by the Anglo-French allied forces on October 7th. This is discussed in detail in Pei Guangqiang's paper. This study aims to discuss the reasons behind Elgin's unilateral order, despite the release of hostages he desired and the opposition of his ally, France, on October 18th, when he suddenly ordered the arson.

First, the fact that the second burning was a unilateral action by the British forces can be found in Prince Gong's memorial.

This morning (October 19th), the French envoy secretly informed me that the actions of the British envoy were reckless, contrary to reason, and excessive, and therefore they could not endorse them.

Consequently, they stated they could not cooperate with the British.

General Grant and Elgin did not provide a clear explanation of their actions, and as the weather has become very cold,

it will be difficult to spend the winter here, so they proposed to exchange the treaty promptly and then withdraw their troops.

The French envoy also stated that if the treaty could be exchanged soon, they would withdraw their troops.

本日法夷带兵向该员等密语，以英夷狂悖过甚，心众颇为不

服，不愿与该夷同在一处，无如葛酋与额酋同办一事未便明言，天气寒冷，难

以及在此过冬，如可早日换约，即愿退兵等语。

- "Yuanmingyuan: Qing Dynasty Archival Materials" (September 6th, 9th year of Xianfeng).

This indicates that the French forces did not participate in the second burning incident. Despite being allies, the British acted unilaterally in ordering the arson for three reasons. First, the British forces were dissatisfied with the looting incident that occurred from October 6th to 8th. According to a letter published in The Times on March 12, 1874:

“The Summer Palace, as well as the Treasury where the ingots

referred to by General Montauban were found, had been in the

possession of the French Army some hours before any steps were taken for securing to the English Army any share in the captured property,

and it was only when one of the English Prize Commissioners,

seeing the French soldiers in full possession of the Treasury,

insisted upon a fair division of the treasure, that any measures were

adopted by the French for guarding it from further pillaged by their

soldiers. As regards the other valuables taken by the French upon

their first capture of the Palace, I am not aware that any division was

ever made.” –The Times, 1874.3.12

Afterward, when an article was published stating that the French forces had equally distributed the looted items from the Yuanmingyuan with the British forces, a letter with the above content was sent to the editor of The Times in response. In other words, the British forces harbored resentment over the unequal distribution of looted items by the French, and the Anglo-French alliance began to fracture.

Second, Elgin needed a 'performance' to cover up the defeat at the Taku forts (Erick, 2015). The defeat at the Taku forts led to attacks from the Conservative Party in the cabinet, and Elgin, as the plenipotentiary representative, had to bear all the responsibility (Editorial Committee of the Compilation of Modern Chinese History, 1978). The failure at the Taku forts resulted in accusations of Elgin's weak policies (Wang Tian-gen, 2014). Therefore, Elgin needed a performance to prove his assertiveness in the midst of domestic political struggles and public opinion battles. The Yuanmingyuan became the best target to secure his position in domestic politics.

The Yuanmingyuan was a garden full of European fantasies about China (Erick 2015). General Montauban could not stop marveling at the Yuanmingyuan. He wrote in his letter, 'Words cannot fully capture this beauty. I will describe it in detail in my next letter. This is my honor (The Times 1860.12.22).' To Elgin, however, this palace of illusions was merely a desolate, dirty, and unkempt park. Without any sense of reverence, Elgin ordered the burning of the 'Emperor's beloved garden,' the Yuanmingyuan, to demonstrate his resolve to Britain. Through this, Elgin could restore his political standing and his honor. In reality, the Yuanmingyuan was in financial distress; a report from the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1858 indicated that it could no longer be maintained, with many parts needing repair and refurbishment, but lacking the necessary capital (Yuanmingyuan 1991).

Had there been no internal friction within the Anglo-French allied forces, Elgin's unilateral order would have been difficult to execute. Furthermore, if the domestic political situation in Britain had not been so critical of Elgin, he would not have had to resort to such a hardline approach. The confluence of external circumstances and Elgin's personal desires became the direct cause of the burning of the Yuanmingyuan. Disciplinary action for the torture and murder of hostages. Elgin was not only dissatisfied with the capture of the British delegation as hostages, but he was also enraged to see that only 18 out of 39 had returned alive, and the rest were emaciated due to torture. Elgin described this in his diary as a 'heinous crime' and demanded a strict investigation (Wang Longzhu 2015). Prince Gong's memorial of October 19th indicates that the British forces accurately identified the cause of their act of arson beforehand. Elgin burned the Yuanmingyuan to punish the confinement, torture, and murder of the delegation.

"(October 17th) I received this dispatch. Over 20 foreign soldiers were detained,

and mistreated. In response, the Qing dynasty must pay 300,000 taels in reparations, or we will destroy the Yuanmingyuan.

We will reply by the 20th, pay the reparations by the 22nd, and exchange the treaty on the 23rd. They said these things. Regarding this

insolent situation, I am furious (日亥刻接到英法两

夷照会，均借口于前夷兵二十余名监禁凌虐，英夷则称欲赔恤银三十万两，及

拆毁圆明园宫殿。均定于初七日照覆，初九日给银，初十日换约各等语。种种

狂悖情形，实勘发指).” -- 『Yuanmingyuan: Historical Archives of the Qing Dynasty』 (September 6th, 10th year of Xianfeng)

Another study suggests that Elgin's act of arson was motivated by a desire to incite domestic public opinion by using his status after hearing of the death of Bowlby, a correspondent for The Times. However, according to the materials from The Times that I have obtained, this content was included.

) Other studies suggest that Elgin's act of arson was motivated by a desire to incite domestic public opinion upon hearing of the death of Bolby, a reporter for The Times, by using his identity. According to The Times materials I have obtained, this content was included.

“The Palace was not burnt for several days after its capture, and was

destroyed, not to avenge the death of Mr. Bowlby, The Times

correspondent, as is apparently implied by General Montauban, deeply as

that gentleman’s death was lamented, but as a punishment, inducted upon

the Emperor of China for an act of treachery to a flag of truce perpetrated

by his Government, if not by his direct instructions, and the subsequent

murder of some, and the ill-treatment of the remainder, of those who had

been captured while under its protection.”—The Times, 1874.3.12

Looking at this content, we can also discover another point: that French General Montauban spread false information. On October 6, 1860, the British army lost its way and arrived later than the French army, allowing the French army to seize public opinion first (Pei Guangqiang 2015). The late-appearing explanatory articles in The Times once again prove that there were discordances within the Anglo-French allied forces. Elgin's order to set fire reveals anger over the abuse and torture of hostages and a determination to respond to the Qing Dynasty.

Furthermore, the argument that the British burning was not for Emperor Xianfeng's surrender can be seen in the memorials within 『Yuanmingyuan』. Prince Gong sent several letters inquiring about the timing of the treaty exchange, but received no reply. Two days before Elgin sent his dispatch on the 17th, Prince Gong had already sent a letter asking about the exchange timing, but the dispatch two days later only contained notification of reparations and destruction. If the burning of the Yuanmingyuan led to the Qing dynasty's surrender, and if the ratification and exchange of the treaty are considered surrender, then the surrender occurred before Elgin's arson. China's appeasement policy and Western modern diplomacy. The burning of the Yuanmingyuan was an individual and unilateral act by Elgin. However, it was fundamentally a clash of thought between the Chinese order and the Western order. According to Erick, the Western liberal international relations, which presuppose horizontal relationships, and the Chinese hierarchical international relations, which presuppose vertical relationships, are incompatible and have an asymmetrical structure where one order must dominate the other. Until the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, these two vastly different orders were in contact. This accumulation of misunderstanding and distrust led to the destruction of the Yuanmingyuan as we see it today.

Despite the Qing military's significantly inferior strength compared to the Anglo-French forces, they still did not yield and continuously devised appeasement strategies. China's appeasement policy, a diplomatic approach towards the 'barbarians' (Yi), had been practiced for many years. Not only in the burning of the Yuanmingyuan but also in the Second Opium War, China was 'appeasing' Britain, France, the United States, and Russia. This primarily involved two methods: 'Chao' (剿), meaning military action, and 'Fu' (抚), meaning appeasement diplomacy. However, as the characters suggest, China's 'Fu' diplomacy was not a relationship between equal states but an appeasement policy of 'soothing' the other party within a clearly hierarchical relationship. The principle of the appeasement policy was a submissive attitude towards the Qing court (Wei Jun 2000). Adhering to these principles, the Qing dynasty faced the tragedy of being able to do nothing but watch the Yuanmingyuan burn.

In the Treaty of Tianjin, the item that most unsettled Emperor Xianfeng was the permanent stationing of diplomatic envoys in Beijing (『Chouban Yiwu Shimo·Xianfeng Volume 7』 1979). This was because it disregarded China's traditional etiquette and dignity (Wang Longzhu 2015). The incompatibility of China's 'propriety' and Western equal state relations is evident here. Furthermore, the incident of the Parks delegation being taken hostage, which directly led to the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, also fundamentally occurred within the encounter of Eastern and Western orders. When Parks negotiated with Prince Gong, the arrogance of Britain and the politeness of France ultimately led to the detention of the Parks delegation.

"The French ambassador said nothing. At this time, Parks stood up and said that today's

treaty requires a direct audience with the Emperor to show sincerity.

He also requested that since the soldiers who came from afar wish to see China,

they be allowed to enter with the troops. Prince Gong, finding his attitude impolite,

told him to wait for his reply. After a while, Prince Gong, after consulting with Sengge Rinchen,

had Parks arrested and sent to the capital. The French ambassador was treated politely, and Prince Gong

also treated him with courtesy (法使无词，巴夏礼起曰：“今日之约，须面见大皇帝，以昭

诚信。”又曰：“远方慕义，欲观光上国九矣，请以军容入。”王见其语不逊，答

以须请旨定夺。久之，巴出，王密会僧格林沁计擒巴夏礼，送京师，以法使尚

恭顺，仍礼遣之。).” -- 『Qing Dynasty's Diplomacy of Gentle Persuasion』, 1989. While Britain sought diplomatic relations based on equality, China's diplomacy was based on appeasement, using propriety to control the other party. Ultimately, Parks was detained, and the torture and death of hostages led to the burning of the Yuanmingyuan. In the end, the clash between the appeasement policy based on the Chinese order and the Western order based on the principles of freedom and equality became the fundamental cause of the burning of the Yuanmingyuan. Afterward, Prince Gong's diplomatic approach gradually adapted to Western diplomatic methods, and his changed diplomatic strategy was praised by later generations as being appropriate for the times. The Second Opium War concluded with a Western victory.

Conclusion

The Second Opium War, following the First Opium War, was an event driven by Western commercial interests. Had the two orders not met due to commercial interests, they would have coexisted as they had in the past (Erick 2015). However, the moment the two orders met, one had to disappear from history according to the logic of power. This field trip examined the burning of the Yuanmingyuan, a symbolically significant event. The burning of the Yuanmingyuan on October 18, 1860, was a unilateral action by the British army, ordered by the British plenipotentiary Elgin upon learning of the torture and death of the British delegation, as a 'punishment' for the Qing dynasty. It was also a hardline performance considering Elgin's political position. He had to take responsibility for the defeat at the Dagu Forts and could only respond with victory and success. Amidst this, the hostage incident involving the delegation provided an excellent opportunity, and the Yuanmingyuan became a sacrificial lamb for Elgin's personal ambitions.

Behind the direct cause of the Parks delegation hostage incident lay the fundamental cause of the clash between Eastern and Western orders. The Western international order, which values freedom and equality, is inherently in conflict with the Chinese order, which emphasizes hierarchy and propriety. The struggle between these two orders involved military power, and while the Qing dynasty's finances were progressively deteriorating, the West was accumulating wealth through commerce and free trade. Their weaponry was advanced, and facing such advanced civilization, Emperor Xianfeng could only show helplessness. In 1860, the Chinese order began to fade into history simultaneously with the fire at the Yuanmingyuan. The order based on propriety was brutally shattered by the logic of power. References Wang Longzhu. 2015. The Lost Paradise, Yuanmingyuan. Translated by Kim Seung-ryong and Lee Jeong-seon. Seoul: Hansup. James L. Hevia. 2003. English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism

in Nineteenth-Century China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong

University Press.

Major General G. Allgood. 1901. China War, 1860, Letters and

Journals, New York and Boombay: Longmans, Green.

Ringmar, Erik. 2015. Liberal Barbarism: The European Destruction of

the Palace of the Emperor of China.

The Times. 1860, 1874 Pei Guangqiang. 2014. "Re-examination of Various Issues Regarding the First Burning of the Yuanmingyuan by the Anglo-French Allied Forces." Beijing Social

Science, Issue 6.

________________ 2015. "Further Discussion on the Causes of the Burning of the Yuanmingyuan during the Second Opium War: An Examination from a Macro Perspective." Beijing Social Science, Issue 8.

Cause: An Examination from a Macro Perspective.” Beijing Social Sciences, Issue 8.

Compiled by Wang Zhichun of the Qing Dynasty. 1989. Records of the Qing Dynasty's Gentle Diplomacy. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Compiled by Jia Zhen et al. of the Qing Dynasty. 1979. Historical Archives of the Qing Dynasty: Xianfeng Period (Vol. 7). Beijing:

Zhonghua Book Company. Wang Kaixi. 2006. New Discourse on Late Qing Politics. Beijing: Commercial Press. Wang Tian'gen. 2014. "Analysis of Rare Historical Materials Such as Diplomatic Dispatches and Gift Lists During the Burning of the Yuanmingyuan: Also Discussing Prince Gong Yixin and the Late Qing Political Stage." Journal of Humanities, Issue 4. Wei Jun. 2000. "A Discussion on Emperor Daoguang's 'Containment' Diplomacy in the Early Period of the Opium Wars." Journal of Xi'an International Studies University, Vol. 8, Issue 2.

Explanation: Also discussing Prince Gong Yixin and the political stage of the late Qing Dynasty.” Journal of Humanities, Issue 4. Wei Jun. 2000. “A Discussion on the ‘Containment’ Diplomacy of Emperor Daoguang in the Early Period of the Opium War.” Xi'an International Studies University

Yang Jintao. 2017. "Why Did the Anglo-French Allied Forces Only Burn the Yuanmingyuan and Not the Forbidden City?" Wen Shi Bo Lan, Issue 12.

Yang Jintao. 2017. "Why Did the Anglo-French Allied Forces Only Burn the Yuanmingyuan and Not the Forbidden City?" Wen Shi Bo Lan, Issue 12.

[British] Stanley Lane-Poole. 2008. Translated by Kim Young. Harry Parkes in China. Guangxi: Guangxi University Press.

[UK] Stanley Lane-Poole. 2008. Translated by Jin Ying. *Sir Harry Parkes in China*. Guangxi:

Guangxi University Press.

Compiled by the First Historical Archives of China. 1991. Yuanmingyuan: Historical Archives of the Qing Dynasty, Vols. 1 and 2. Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House.

Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House.

Compiled by the Editorial Group for the Series on Modern Chinese History. 1978. *The Second Opium War*. Shanghai: People's

Publishing House.