The Construction of the Qing Empire's Composite Identity: The Confucian Identity Conception in the 'Dayi Juemi Lu' and the Forbidden City's Inner Court

Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Ewha Womans University

I. Introduction

Discussions on the identity of the Qing Dynasty have not been clearly settled even to this day. This can be confirmed by the fact that the concepts used to describe the Qing, such as Zhongwai Yitong (中外一統, Unified China and the Outer Regions), Huai Yijia (華夷一家, Sinocentric and Barbarian Unity), Multi-ethnic Empire (多民族帝國), and Great Sinocentrism (大中華主義), are not unified.

A symbol that concretely expresses this confusion can be found in the portraits of Qing emperors. Qing emperors were sometimes depicted as ideal Confucian gentlemen (君子), like Han Chinese literati, and at other times appeared in the form of Manjushri Bodhisattva or Tibetan lamas, showing a religious image revered by northern peoples. Furthermore, they were even depicted with Western features, embodying the emperor in a highly diverse manner. These facts are presented as evidence supporting the claims of New Qing History scholars that the Qing was a multi-ethnic empire encompassing diverse peoples.1)

1) Lee Eun-sang 2021, 15. However, the following questions may arise: Why did the Qing emperors, as heads of a multi-ethnic empire, reside in the Forbidden City (紫禁城), a symbol of the Confucian order? The Forbidden City, an earthly manifestation of the celestial Ziwei Yuan (紫微垣), can be considered a space where the essence of Confucian thought is concentrated. Moreover, the fact that the Qing almost entirely inherited and implemented the civil service examination system (科舉制度) based on Confucian classics from the Ming Dynasty is also a point to consider.

The questions continue beyond this. Emperor Kangxi (康熙帝) is known to have expanded the six maxims established by Emperor Taizu (太祖) Hongwu (洪武帝) of the Ming Dynasty into sixteen articles, compiled as the 'Sacred Edicts Sixteen Maxims' (聖諭十六條), and had them read daily in official settings.2) Additionally, large-scale compilation projects, such as the 'Gujin Tushu Jicheng' (古今圖書集成), were undertaken to appease Han Chinese intellectuals.3) These can be seen as representative policies through which the Qing sought to legitimize its rule based on the Confucian order.

His successor, Emperor Yongzheng (雍正帝), compiled 'Sheng Yu Guang Xun' (聖諭廣訓), an explanatory text on the 'Sacred Edicts Sixteen Maxims,' and further authored and distributed 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄) nationwide to proclaim himself as the legitimate successor to Confucian orthodoxy. In the case of Emperor Qianlong (乾隆帝), he completed the 'Siku Quanshu' (四庫全書), a systematic classification of vast classical texts and documents. This collection is organized into four sections: Classics (經), Histories (史), Masters (子), and Collections (集). The 'Classics' section, considered the most important, exclusively includes Confucian classics, thereby solidifying a Confucian-centered order.

This series of policies demonstrates that the Qing emperors not only adhered to their Manchu traditions but also actively embraced and internalized Confucian governing ideology. If the Qing had insisted on its unique Manchu characteristics and pursued only a multi-ethnic empire, such Confucian-centric policies would not have been adopted. Therefore, how should we understand and describe the Qing Dynasty?

Perspectives on the Qing are broadly divided into two. One is the 'Sinicization Theory' (漢化論), which posits that the Qing gradually became Sinicized. The other is the argument that the unique culture and political identity of the Manchu people were maintained until the end. The latter perspective, in particular, has been highlighted by the New Qing History school, which focuses on analyzing the Qing as a multi-ethnic empire with unique characteristics.

However, this approach lacks consideration for the influence of Confucianism and East Asian universality, and it tends to reduce the Confucian governing ideology to a mere Manchu strategy. This paper critically approaches this perspective and aims to demonstrate that the Qing's governing ideology was indeed based on Confucian values. It particularly focuses on how Confucianism was not merely a tool for appeasing the Han but was an internalized, substantive ideology within the Qing emperors' governing framework. Through this, we aim to explore whether a third perspective4) on Qing history, following the Old and New Qing Histories, can be established.

To elucidate this, this study will analyze the imperial edicts (上諭) in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄), directly authored by Emperor Yongzheng. This text is evaluated as a key source demonstrating how Qing emperors interpreted and adopted Confucian legitimacy. Therefore, by examining the status of Confucianism within the Qing governing ideology, focusing on 'Dayi Juemi Lu,' this paper seeks to offer new possibilities for interpretation in the debate surrounding the universality and particularity of the Qing.

II. The Historical Trajectory and Spectrum of Interpretation of 'Dayi Juemi Lu'

1. The Emergence and Disappearance of 'Dayi Juemi Lu'

One day, six years after Emperor Yongzheng ascended the throne, Yue Zhongqi (岳鍾琪), Governor-General of Sichuan and Shaanxi, immediately reported to Emperor Yongzheng the fact that Zeng Jing (曾靜), a scholar from Hunan Province, had urged him to raise an army. Yue Zhongqi was a descendant of Yue Fei (岳飛), a Song Dynasty (宋) general who achieved great victories against the Jin Dynasty, which is highly significant.5)

In response, Emperor Yongzheng had Zeng Jing and his disciples arrested and interrogated them directly. In the process, he confirmed that Han Chinese in the Jiangnan region doubted his succession to the throne and were denying the legitimacy of the Qing based on the Huai Yi concept (華夷觀). To rectify this, Emperor Yongzheng compiled a book based on the interrogation records and had it read aloud in schools across the country.6) This book is 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄). Breaking down the title, it means 'A Record to Enlighten the Deluded with Righteousness.'

Zeng Jing, who led the rebellion, was mentally unstable and lacked profound scholarship. His life history shows that he repeatedly failed the civil service examinations, could not secure an official post, and lived in extreme poverty due to famine. His circumstances clearly indicate that he had no strong backing whatsoever.7)

Despite this, Emperor Yongzheng compiled the interrogation into a book because he saw this incident as an opportunity to check the Han Chinese intellectuals in the Jiangnan region, particularly the scholar-official class represented by the descendants of Lü Liuliang (呂留良). At the time, Han Chinese in the Jiangnan region were intensely focused on the distinction between Hua and Yi (華夷分別). This was a thought that the Qing court had to suppress. The opportunity to correct this arose from Zeng Jing's actions. Emperor Yongzheng compiled the book by repeatedly questioning himself and Zeng Jing, having Zeng Jing criticize him, and thus eliciting an acknowledgment of the Qing's legitimacy.8)

However, Emperor Qianlong, who succeeded Emperor Yongzheng, immediately recalled all copies of this book upon his enthronement and designated it as forbidden literature. Later scholars interpreted this as the book being collected because Emperor Yongzheng's ideological response was no longer necessary during Emperor Qianlong's reign.9) However, the question of why a book directly compiled and distributed by the father was banned remains unresolved. Such an act, which completely negates the father's political stance, could undermine the legitimacy of the Qing emperor's succession.

In this regard, historian Fang Chao-ying (方詔英) suggested that Emperor Qianlong found the excessive exposure of the imperial family's internal affairs in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' displeasing and thus banned it.10) Indeed, 'Dayi Juemi Lu' contains relatively detailed sensitive information not mentioned in official documents. A prime example is the controversy surrounding Emperor Yongzheng's succession, which has persisted from his enthronement to the present day. Academic circles are divided between the orthodox theory, which holds that Emperor Yongzheng legitimately succeeded Emperor Kangxi, and the usurpation theory, which claims he usurped the throne.11)

10) Hummel 1943, 749. 11) Dai Yi 2025, 33. Official documents only state that Emperor Kangxi passed away after entrusting the throne to Emperor Yongzheng. However, 'Dayi Juemi Lu' provides detailed accounts of the circumstances surrounding the succession, including the fact that Longkodo (隆科多) concealed Emperor Kangxi's dying wish, preventing Emperor Yongzheng from being present at his deathbed. Why did Longkodo conspire to do this at the time of Emperor Kangxi's death? It raises suspicions about whether the throne was perhaps intended for another prince.12) In fact, 'Dayi Juemi Lu' includes Zeng Jing's claim that Emperor Kangxi left a will stating 'Pass it to the fourteenth son' (傳十四子), which Emperor Yongzheng allegedly forged to read 'Pass it to the fourth son' (傳于四子), and Emperor Yongzheng's refutation.13)

Such content would have been highly burdensome for Emperor Qianlong. Debates surrounding the legitimacy of his father's succession could politically impact the legitimacy of his own succession. This is likely the reason why Emperor Qianlong recalled and banned the book. However, Pamela Kyle Crossley (2012) argues that the book was banned due to a difference in views between Emperor Yongzheng and Emperor Qianlong. Is this argument persuasive?

Although 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄) was banned by Emperor Qianlong (乾隆帝), there is no doubt that Emperor Yongzheng (雍正帝) meticulously compiled and distributed it. From this, it is clear that this text is a source for understanding the political reasons behind the Qing emperors' governing plans.

Perhaps due to Emperor Qianlong's ban, research on 'Dayi Juemi Lu' has not been very active. Before 2000, there were only six related studies. However, currently, over 100 studies have been published.14) The background to this increased interest lies in the expanding academic attempts to find historical connections with contemporary China.

So, how should 'Dayi Juemi Lu' be interpreted? Previous studies viewed this document as a product of the Manchu people's attempt to assimilate into Han Chinese society and persuade the Han. However, New Qing History scholars have raised questions about this interpretation.

Crossley defines 'Dayi Juemi Lu' as a political propaganda text primarily authored by the Qing emperor, considering it a means to emphasize the legitimacy and governing authority of the Qing Empire. This interpretation does not significantly differ from that of traditional scholars. However, Crossley analyzes that the text emphasizes the Manchu concepts of 'kesi' (恩, grace) and 'erdemu' (聖德, enduring virtue) rather than 'ren' (仁, benevolence), a core Confucian value. Furthermore, she argues that 'Dayi Juemi Lu' reveals the unique Manchu governing thought, as the ruler is depicted as a being with transcendent virtues, and the subjects are portrayed as dependent beings who must be protected and obey.15)

However, this interpretation warrants reconsideration. In Confucianism (儒敎), the ideal ruler is a gentleman (君子) who realizes virtuous governance (德治), which is embodied through the harmony of benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom (仁義禮智). Benevolence (仁) and wisdom (智) are values related to inner human nature, while righteousness (義) and propriety (禮) are institutional aspects manifested externally. Only when these internal and external elements are integrated can the Confucian ideal of virtuous governance be established. Therefore, interpreting the expression 'enduring virtue' (聖德) in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' solely as a Manchu particularity is not appropriate. The same applies to the concept of 'grace' (恩). Gratitude for the emperor's grace is a formal and honorific term expressing the emperor's special consideration, favor, and benevolence (施惠). The term 'imperial grace' appears in so many official documents and is frequently found in texts like the 'Chun Qiu' (春秋) that it is unreasonable to consider it exclusive to the Manchu people.

Furthermore, the understanding of the ruler as a being with supernatural virtues is not inconsistent with the Confucian tradition. In Confucianism, the Son of Heaven (天子) is a ruler who governs the world by receiving the Mandate of Heaven (天命), thus possessing partial attributes of a celestial deity. While Crossley considers these elements as unique Manchu characteristics, they need to be understood in comparison with mythical structures found throughout East Asia. For example, China has ancient myths about celestial descendants such as the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors (三皇五帝), Korea has Dangun Wanggeom (檀君王儉), and Japan has Amaterasu (天照大神). In other words, the narrative of the descent of heavenly descendants (天孫降臨) is universally present. Therefore, the image of a sacred ruler appearing in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' should be understood not as a specific element limited to the Manchu people but as a cultural and mythical universality that existed throughout East Asia.

Ishibashi Takao (石橋崇雄) argues that what Emperor Yongzheng sought to emphasize in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' was that in governing the world, what matters is the 'presence or absence of virtue' (德), not the distinction between Hua and Yi. China has historically been composed of a mixture of Zhonghua (中華) and Yidi (夷狄), so political legitimacy was not lost simply for being Yidi. Therefore, Ishibashi views Emperor Yongzheng as proclaiming the concept of 'Huai Yijia' (華夷一家) in 'Dayi Juemi Lu'.16) Furthermore, he evaluates this thought as a clear expression of the Qing Empire's characteristic as a unified multi-ethnic state. Hirano Satoshi (平野聰) further argues that Emperor Yongzheng's ideology of Zhongwai Yitong (中外一統) was a grand unified structure encompassing not only the Central Plains but also the northern territories and peoples.17)

However, the interpretations of these Japanese scholars also require re-examination. 'Dayi Juemi Lu' was written to target the Han Chinese in the Jiangnan region who threatened imperial authority by distinguishing between Hua and Yi, and it does not contain persuasive arguments for peripheral peoples such as the Mongols or Tibetans. Moreover, Emperor Yongzheng emphasized that what is important for the Son of Heaven (天子) is to realize virtuous governance (德治), regardless of ethnic origin, and he distinguished between Confucian governing ideology and ethnic identity. The statement about integrating the cultures and traditions of all peoples into one in the Central Plains does not appear in the imperial edicts. It is regrettable that this point has not been sufficiently highlighted in previous research.

III. The Narrative of Legitimacy of the Qing Empire Revealed in 'Dayi Juemi Lu'

'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄) consists of four volumes, including ten imperial edicts (上諭) personally issued by the emperor, forty-seven interrogation records of Zeng Jing (曾靜), and Zeng Jing's self-criticism titled 'Gui Ren Shuo' (歸認說).18) This paper focuses on the imperial edicts, where the political stance and logic regarding the legitimacy of the Qing dynasty are most clearly revealed, for analysis.

16) Ishibashi Takao 2009, 247. 17) Hirano Satoshi 2004.

18) Ishibashi Takao 2009, 245. 1. Emperor Yongzheng's Discourse on Legitimacy in 'Dayi Juemi Lu'

Emperor Yongzheng (雍正帝) repeatedly emphasizes that governing the people by receiving the Mandate of Heaven (天命) must be based on virtue (德), and that the one who realizes virtuous governance is the Son of Heaven (天子). The imperial edicts in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' repeatedly contain phrases such as, 'The way to nurture the people lies with the virtuous,' 'The one whom Heaven loves as emperor is only the virtuous,' and 'Heaven makes the virtuous the ruler of the world.' Furthermore, the statement, 'Since the existence of emperors, the criterion for a ruler has solely been whether they possess great virtue, with no other criteria,' is also presented. Through this, we can confirm that Emperor Yongzheng sought to legitimize the Qing emperor as a sage ruler (聖君) who governs the world with virtue.

Moreover, he clarifies that Heaven chooses a ruler based on 'virtue' rather than region of origin or bloodline. He repeatedly emphasizes that he has never heard of Heaven making someone a ruler simply because they were born in a particular region, and that the ruler of the Central Plains should be judged by the presence or absence of virtue, not by the distinction between Hua and Yi. This implies the argument that the criterion for governing legitimacy lies not in ethnic identity but in the realization of Confucian virtue (德性).

As an example, he mentions Shun (舜) and King Wen (文王). Shun was of Dongyi (東夷) origin, and King Wen was of Xiyi (西夷) origin, but the fact that they were Yidi (夷狄) did not serve as grounds to undermine their virtue or deny the legitimacy of their rule.

After fully explaining that the criterion for ruling legitimacy lies not in the distinction between Hua and Yi, but in the embodiment of virtue, it explains that the distinction between Hua and Yi is not absolute but a relative concept that can vary with times and geography.

Emperor Yongzheng mentions that the territory of the Central Plains has become much more extensive compared to the past when it was ruled, pointing out the contradiction that by today's standards, many past regions would be considered Yidi. Therefore, he argues that Hua and Yi cannot be simply distinguished by geographical criteria.

To emphasize this point, Emperor Yongzheng quotes Mencius (孟子) and argues that the creation of culture and institutions, not regional or ethnic factors, should be the criterion. This emphasizes that Zhonghua is formed not by ethnic identity but by cultural practice and the realization of the Confucian order. To summarize this, it is interpreted that Hua represents civilization, and Yi represents barbarism; therefore, any group that enters civilization can become Hua.

The imperial edicts in 'Dayi Juemi Lu' repeatedly present this content with various quotations and examples, allowing for a clear understanding of the core message Emperor Yongzheng intended to convey.

2. 'Dayi Juemi Lu' and the Logic of the Multi-ethnic Empire

Zhang Dandan (張丹丹) and Han Dongyu (韓東育) from China, and Hirano Satoshi (平野聰) from Japan, have extended the discussion of 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄) to the theory of a unified multi-ethnic state. Their interpretations are based on concepts such as Huai Yijia (華夷一家), Zhongwai Yitong (中外一統), and Tianxia Yitong (天下一統) appearing in 'Dayi Juemi Lu'.

For example, the passage in the imperial edict, 'Now the rebellious group, in an era when the world is unified (一統) and Hua and Yi are one family (一家), has presumptuously distinguished between Zhong and Wai and stirred up unreasonable anger,' is interpreted as an expression emphasizing that the Qing Empire had already integrated various peoples into a single order. Based on this, some scholars view the Qing Dynasty as having functioned as an empire that encompassed diverse peoples, and 'Dayi Juemi Lu' as supporting its ideological legitimacy.

However, this interpretation overlooks the purpose of 'Dayi Juemi Lu's' compilation and its historical context. This document was originally a political text written to counter the situation where Han Chinese in the Jiangnan region distinguished between Hua and Yi, thereby denying or questioning the legitimacy of the Qing. In 'Dayi Juemi Lu,' 'Hua' primarily refers to the Han Chinese, and 'Yi' refers to the Manchu people, with the central discussion focusing on how to integrate the Manchu-Han conflict.

In other words, this document does not present a governing blueprint or assimilation strategy for other northern ethnic groups such as Mongols, Tibetans, or Dzungars, and it has limitations as a text of integrated ideology encompassing the entire multi-ethnic empire. Therefore, viewing 'Dayi Juemi Lu' as a core text of the unified multi-ethnic state theory may be an excessive extension beyond its purpose and actual scope of discourse.

IV. Conclusion

It seems unlikely that a clear consensus will be reached in the future regarding the identity of the Qing Empire. This is because, despite Confucianism (儒敎) not being exclusively the possession of the Han Chinese (漢族), the perception that Confucian thought and the Central Plains (中原) are monopolized by the Han Chinese remains firmly entrenched. As long as this stereotype persists, research on the Qing identity will inevitably face certain limitations. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that fixed perceptions of the Manchu people have not yet been overcome. As long as these perceptions continue, it will be difficult to reach a comprehensive interpretation of how Manchu emperors could function as the Son of Heaven (天子), the Great Khan (Khan of Khans), and the Chakravartin (轉輪聖王).

Today, we tend to mechanically apply formal equality to communities with a shared cultural basis. However, examining the political and intellectual structure of the past Central Plains reveals a clear hierarchy of thought. A prime example is the 'Siku Quanshu' (四庫全書). This compilation project established a clear value hierarchy by placing Confucian classics at the highest level, followed by historical texts (史), then the philosophies of the Hundred Schools of Thought (諸子百家), and finally, other writings. This serves as evidence that the imperial authority at the time recognized the Confucian order as the core basis of governance.

Due to the insufficient sharing of these facts, the misconception that Qing emperors disdained Confucianism and emphasized only Manchu characteristics has spread. Even governing strategies that utilized religious ideas like Buddhism to incorporate nomadic peoples have tended to be regarded as actions contrary to orthodox Confucian governance.

Ultimately, such arguments repeatedly commit the error of assuming that the complex structure that actually existed did not exist, by deleting or ignoring the multi-layered regional and cultural realities of northern and southern China.

Examining 'Dayi Juemi Lu' (大義覺迷錄), Emperor Yongzheng clearly states his disagreement with the assertion that the emperor must be Han Chinese. He argues that historically, those who ruled the Central Plains were those who governed the country with virtue (德) and upheld the great righteousness (大義) between ruler and minister; therefore, it is not appropriate to divide people based solely on the distinction between Hua and Yi, or to antagonize or reject the Yidi. This means that the authority to rule the Central Plains is not based on ethnic identity but on how well the Confucian political ideals are realized, proclaiming that any ethnic group can realize Confucian values.

However, it is not appropriate to immediately interpret this stance as the concept of a 'universal ruler of a multi-ethnic empire.' This is because the argument that one who realizes Confucian governing ideology can become emperor and rule the Central Plains is not the same as the logic of integrating all peoples into a single imperial order.

Therefore, it is necessary to clearly recognize that the hierarchy of thought and the distinction between Hua and Yi are issues on different levels. By examining the Qing Dynasty based on this distinction, the identity of the Qing, which has been overlooked until now, can be more clearly revealed. Furthermore, by analyzing in three dimensions the strategies employed by the Qing court using various ideologies and religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism, it is expected that the governing framework of the Qing Empire can be understood more profoundly. <References> 1. Books Nam Cheol-jin. 2021. *The History and Cultural Knowledge of China*. Gyeongsan: Yeollinsiseon·Yeongnam University Press.

Dai Yi, translated by Park Yeon-ok, supervised by Kim Seung-il. 2025. *Mysteries of the Rise and Fall of the Qing Dynasty*. Seoul: Gyeongji Publishing.

Danjo Hiroshi, translated by Kwon Yong-cheol. 2023. *History of China from Tianxia to Tianchao: The World Under Heaven, the Dynasty Appointed by Heaven*. Seoul: AK Communications. Yongzheng, translated by Lee Hyung-jun, Choi Dong-cheol, Park Yun-mi, Kim Jun-hyun. 2021. *Dayi Juemi Lu*. Seoul: b.

Ishibashi Takao, translated by Hong Seong-gu. 2009. *The Great Qing Empire: 1616-1799, How Did 1 Million Manchus Rule 100 Million Han Chinese?* Seoul: Humanist.

Lee Eun-sang. 2021. *Image Empire: Emperor Qianlong's Cultural Projects*. Busan: Sanjini.

Translated by Jonathan D. Spence, translated by Lee San. 2004. *The Book of Rebellion: Emperor Yongzheng and Ideological Control*. Seoul: Lee San.

Hirano Satoshi. 2004. *The Qing Dynasty and the Tibetan Question: The Formation and Dissolution of Multi-ethnic Integration*. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press.

Crossley, Pamela Kyle. 2012. “Dayi juemi lu 大義覺迷錄.”

Crossroads.

Hummel, Arthur W. (Ed.). 1943. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing

Period. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office. 2. Song In-ju. 2020. “Emperor Yongzheng’s Ideological Struggle — The Theory of Hua-Yi and ‘Unification of China and Foreign Lands’ in *Dayi Juemi Lu*.” *Journal of Humanities*, 77: 123-159.

Lee Dong-wook. 2019. “Emperor Yongzheng’s Logic for Resolving Manchu-Han Conflict in *Dayi Juemi Lu*.” *Chung-Ang Sa-ron*, 50(1): 131-180.

Zhang Dandan. 2015. “The Theory and Practice of *Dayi Juemi Lu*.” *Doctoral Dissertation, Northeast Normal University*.

Han Dong-yuk. 2014. “The ‘Sinicizing’ Narrative of the Qing Dynasty’s ‘Non-Han World’ — From *Dayi Juemi Lu* to the *Imperial Edict on the Abdication of the Qing Emperor*.” *Journal of Chinese Borderland History Research*.

Nianqun, Yang. 2016. “Moving beyond ‘Sinicization’ and

‘Manchu characteristics’: Can research on Qing history

take a third path?” Contemporary Chinese Thought,

47(1): 44–58.