Papers by Matthew Mosca
Saksaha: A Journal of Manchu Studies, 2022
The Waiguo ji, a brief work by the early Qing official Zhang Yushu, lists India (Enetkek) among c... more The Waiguo ji, a brief work by the early Qing official Zhang Yushu, lists India (Enetkek) among countries said to have submitted to the Qing state. According to Zhang, the submission of India, together with that of Tibet, derived from the decision of their overlord Güši Qaġan to become a tributary. This short article shows that Zhang's assertion derived from his work as an editor on two works concerning the Shunzhi emperor. It explores the basis of this claim, and discusses why it ceased to appear after the first two decades of the Kangxi reign.
The Limits of Universal Rule: Eurasian Empires Compared, 2021
Asia Major, 2020
This article studies the development during the Qing of the Hua-Yi ("Chinese-foreigner" or "civil... more This article studies the development during the Qing of the Hua-Yi ("Chinese-foreigner" or "civilized-barbarian") dichotomy by examining two questions. First, what peoples within and outside the Qing realm could, in the eyes of the state, legitimately be described as Yi? Second, from the perspective of the Qing state, what criteria determined that status? It argues that the Qing state modified the preceding, Ming-era, Hua-Yi binary into a tripartite division by carving out an implicit third status-"non-Yi." "Non-Yi" applied to Inner Asians, particularly Manchus and Mon-gols, who were regarded as distinct from Han Chinese but equal in their level of civilization and not subject to the discourse of "transformation" applied to those considered Yi. Studying this "non-Yi" status offers insight into the Qing ideology that justified Manchu rule over a composite state of which China was only one component. The conclusion explores tensions and contradictions apparent when the Qing state tried to repurpose existing Chinese political vocabulary to discuss the equal but distinct status of Inner Asia within the Qing realm.
India-China: Intersecting Universalities, 2020
Frontiers of History in China, 2019
Saksaha: A Journal of Manchu Studies, 2018
The International History Review, 2019
European knowledge of the four dominant languages of the Qing Empire, Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian,... more European knowledge of the four dominant languages of the Qing Empire, Chinese, Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan, was transformed between 1792 and 1820 as a consequence of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Although these conflicts did not dramatically alter European political relations with the Qing Empire, they inaugurated a series of more subtle changes that collectively produced this surge in linguistic ability. First, this period saw unprecedented European interest in, and access to, the inland frontiers of the Qing Empire. Such access convinced some that China was newly accessible through the empire’s diverse Inner Asian territories, leading them to plan bold ventures in diplomacy, trade, proselytization, and academic research. These ambitious projects, although rarely accomplishing their goals, stimulated research by seeming to demand new linguistic capabilities for their execution. The fact that they often envisioned crossing Inner Asia to reach China explains why progress in Chinese occurred together with Manchu, Mongolian, and Tibetan. Another factor promoting a sudden surge in multilingual competence was the speed with which breakthroughs could now be communicated through imperial and trans-imperial networks. Printing, evangelical and learned societies, and new professional opportunities, gave European scholars unprecedented access to advances made on or near the Qing frontier.
Xinjiang in the Context of Central Eurasian Transformationss, 2018
Frontiers of History in China, Sep 23, 2014
China's relations with the Asian world between 1500 and 1900 were shaped by a variety of politica... more China's relations with the Asian world between 1500 and 1900 were shaped by a variety of political, economic, and cultural factors. A common denominator in these international relationships was a loose framework of ideological principles and administrative procedures later dubbed by scholars the "tributary system." This "system," first posited in the early 1940s, has remained the single most influential concept for interpreting the interactions of Ming and Qing China with Asian countries. However, in recent decades it has been critiqued from various perspectives, narrowed in the scope of its application, and modified by a greater focus on the actual course of specific cases rather than ideological principles. That is, historians have increasingly come to understand China's relations with the Asian world as influenced by pragmatic considerations and changing local dynamics, so that each relationship and the factors shaping it are best understood on their own terms. One approach to the study of Ming and Qing relations with the Asian world is to consider it within the framework of three regional groupings. China's interactions with its neighbors in Northeast Asia were shaped by its largely stable relations with Korea and the Ryukyu Kingdom, and its radically fluctuating relations with Japan, sometimes marked by conflict and sometimes by the deliberate avoidance of political contact. Early Ming political relations with maritime Southeast Asia atrophied as the role of European and private Chinese merchant intermediaries increased. Those with continental Southeast Asia (particularly Burma, Siam, and Vietnam), more enduring, were influenced by intense regional rivalries that occasionally impinged on the borderlands of China's southern provinces. In these two regions, the Ming-Qing transition, although particularly resented in Korea where it involved two invasions, did not radically alter existing patterns of international relations. By contrast, the vast territorial expansion of the Qing Empire did greatly change China's foreign relations to the north and west, where it encountered states that had not had relations with the Ming. In these regions the Qing government drew principles and practices from its foreign relations in the south and east, but modified them to fit new conditions. After 1800, and more intensively after 1850, European and later Japanese imperial power began to penetrate Central, South, Southeast, and ultimately East Asia, in each region undermining existing Qing relationships with Asian neighbors. By 1900, virtually all former Qing tributaries were under the direct or indirect control of the British, Russian, French, or Japanese empires.
Late Imperial China, 2011
China Report, 2011
This article examines Chinese and Manchu-language sources on Sino-Indian contact during the 18th ... more This article examines Chinese and Manchu-language sources on Sino-Indian contact during the 18th century, concentrating on those-chiefl y produced on the basis of intelligence arriving via Xinjiang-that describe 'Hindustan'. During the 18th century, 'Hindustan' was an evolving political and geographic concept for Qing observers. At fi rst used in Chinese transliteration primarily by a small cohort of Chinese Muslim scholars, the term rose to prominence during the empire's westward expansion in the 1750s. In subsequent decades, geographers, offi cials, and even the Qianlong Emperor analysed its name, location, historical identity and other characteristics. A central issue in these debates was the relationship between newly-prominent 'Hindustan' and older conceptions of 'India'. The intersection of geographic terms and concepts from multiple linguistic and cultural backgrounds, central to interpretations of 'Hindustan', was a general feature in the formation of geographic worldviews during the era of Qing expansion, and an important element shaping Chinese understandings of India in the relatively neglected period between 1650 and 1850.
Book Reviews by Matthew Mosca
Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 2018
Journal of Chinese Studies, 2019
Uploads
Papers by Matthew Mosca
Book Reviews by Matthew Mosca
Seonmin Kim. Ginseng and Borderland:Territorial Boundaries and Political Relations Between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea, 1636-1912. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017. 224 pp. Open access.