Whether Napoleon actually referred China to being a “sleeping lion”, “sleeping dragon” or “sleeping giant” in early 1800s is not clear, nor is it of any importance; but his articulate argument as such was well documented, showcasing his incredible intellect as well as foresight, which is, remarkable, even more relevant today.
In the book “Voyages and Travels: Narrative of a Voyage to Java, China, and the Great Loo-choa Island” published in 1840 by Basil Hall, who was the captain for H.M. Brig Lyra, a guard ship for the Embassy of Lord Amherst to China in 1816/17, it has the following:
“11 August 1817 anchored at St. Helena” (the island where Napoleon Bonaparte was kept captive from 1815 until his death in 1821).
“Buonaparte has always supposedly to take a particular interest in Eastern affairs.”
(Napoleon said) “If I were an Englishman, I should esteem the man who advised a war with China to be the greatest enemy to my country in existence. You would in the end be beaten, and perhaps a revolution in India will follow.”
“26 August 1817: the following observations upon our embassy to China were delivered by Napoleon:
“It appears, that your ambassador Lord Macartney, was obliged in 1793, to submit to the kou-tou, without doing which he would not have been received. Your ministers, who must have foreseen this, and in fact, who did foresee difficulty in etiquette, had in sending out Lord Amherst, authorized him to comply with it; and it appears, that his private opinion was, that he ought to perform it, and that in refusing to do so, he suffered himself to be guided by bad advisors.”
“It is an error, but still one which is generally believed that an ambassador represents the sovereign. An Ambassador, however, does not represent his sovereign, as in fact none of the stipulations of affairs which he signs are valid until after a ratification; and as his rank in etiquette, there never has been an example of sovereign having treated them as equals, never having returned their visits; never having given way for them, nor treated them as they would have treated a sovereign. The false idea that ambassadors represented the sovereign is a tradition of the feodal customs. According to which, at the rendering of homage, when a great vassal was prevented from tendering it in person, he caused himself to be represented by an Ambassador. In this case the ambassador really received the honours due to his master. The character of an ambassador is of the some nature as of a minister plenipotentiary or an envoy, with this difference, that an ambassador is in the first degree, a minister, the second, an envoy, the third; and in negotiations, these three have the same rights; whatever they stipulate or sign must be submitted for the ratification of their prince; but in etiquette there is a great difference, the ambassador in precedency out to be treated like the first lord in the country, like princes or dukes; and ministers of states. The minister plenipotentiary like nobles of the second rank in precedency at court, and envoys like those of the third.”
“The English and Russian Ambassadors had a right to the same distinctions, and ought to have followed the same etiquette as was practised by the princes and chief mandarins. Now, these last performed the kou-tou, and therefore the ambassadors ought to have done the same; and the emperor had the right to require it. It is said that a French captain named Rock who had been in China during Louis XIV, had refused to perform the kou-tou. But it must be considered that this officer is not an ambassador, nor a minister plenipotentiary, nor an envoy, and he was at liberty to act as he pleased, equally as the Chinese government was at liberty to consider him as being of more or less importance. But a man charged with a diplomatic mission ought to have performed the kou-tou; and could not refuse it without being wanting in respect to the emperor, in the same manner as this last could not refuse to receive him, without showing disrespect to his character of ambassador.”
“Lord Macartney, and it appears, Lord Amherst thought of divers expedients, which, had been tried by the Russian Minister. They proposed that a mandarin of equal rank to the ambassador should perform the kou-tou before the picture of the King of England, or that by public declaration that Chinese monarch should promise, that if he sent an ambassador to England, he should perform the kou-tou. The Chinese rejected these proposals, and with good reason. If a Chinese ambassador were received in London, he would have no right to perform the kou-tou; but he ought to follow the same etiquette in the presence of King of England as observed by the princes, ministers of state, and knights of the garter, when they are admitted before the throne, which would be the English kou-tou. These proposals were therefore unreasonable, as the principle we have advanced naturally evinces. A third suggestion was made which was not to perform the kou-tou, to place one knee upon the ground close to the throne, in presenting the credentials. It is certainly an extraordinary presumption for you to attempt to regulate the etiquette of the Palace of Peking by that of St James’; the simple principle which has been laid down, that in negotiations as well as in etiquette, the ambassador does not represent the sovereign, and has only a right to experience the same treatment as the highest grandee of the place, clears up the whole of question, and removes every difficulty.”
“Only one reasonable objection presents itself to the mind, to wit, that the kou-tou is a religious act, that such religious act has something idolatrous in it, and is consequently contrary to the principles of Christianity. The mandarins perfectly comprehended the force of this objection, and repelled the idea, by declaring in an official manner that kou-tou was not a religious act, but simply a law of etiquette, which ought to have removed every scruple. Russia and England should instruct their ambassadors to submit to the kou-tou, upon the sole condition that the Chinese ambassadors should submit in London and Petersburg to such forms of etiquette as are practised by the princes and grandees.”
“Your embassy cost you some hundred thousand pounds, which have been thrown away, and in place of being the means of approximation, will be a foundation for separation and of ill blood between the Chinese and you, and all this by ridiculously misunderstanding. In paying respect to the customs of a country, you make those of your own more sacred; and every homage which is rendered to a great foreign sovereign in the forms which are used in his own country is becoming an honourable. Besides had not your ministers an example of it in what has always taken place with the Porte, which has constantly obliged all ambassadors to submit to the etiquette in use there? The ambassador is not admitted to the feet of the sublime Sultan, unless he is clothed in a cafian, and is obliged to perform such ceremonies as the civilisation of the Porte, and its greater or lesser degree of power, have prescribed and changed; but which still preserve traces of their original character. Is there any great difference between prostrating one’s self, in order to perform the kou-tou, and kissing the dust at the feet of a sultan? You say that you may awe them by means of maritime armament, and thus force the mandarins to submit to the European etiquette. This idea is madness. You would be very badly advised indeed, if you were to call to arms of a nation of 200 million of inhabitants, and to compel them in their own defence to build ships against yours. Every sensible man in your country therefore can consider the refusal to perform kou-tou no otherwise than as unjustifiable, and unfortunate in its consequences.””
In the 11 May 1843 issue of “Friends of China and Hong Kong Gazette” there was an extract on Napoleon’s opinion of a war with China from the memoir “Voice from St. Helena” published in 1822 by Barry Edward O’Meara, then personal physician to the exiled Napoléon:
“”If, said Napoléon (alluding to Lord Amherst’s embassy to China) I had sent an ambassador to China, I should have ordered him to make himself acquainted with the ceremonies performed before the Emperor by the first mandarins, and if required, to do the same himself. Now perhaps, you will lose the friendship of the Chinese nation, and great commercial advantage through this piece of nonsense.”
I said, adds O’Meara, that we could easily compel the Chinese to grant good terms by means of a few ships of war, - that, for example, we could deprive them altogether of salt by a few cruisers properly stationed, Napoleon replied, it would be the worst thing you have done for a number of years to go to war with an immense empire like China, and possessing so many resources, you would, doubtless, at first succeed, take what vessels they have, and destroy their trade and cities; but you would soon teach them their own strength. They would be compelled to adopt measures to defend themselves against you. They would consider, and say, we must make ourselves equal to this nation. Why should we suffer a people so far away to do as they please with us? We must build ships, we must put guns in them, we must render ourselves equal to them. They would, continued, the Emperor, “get artificers and ship-builders from France and America, and even London, they would build a fleet, and in the course of time defeat you.””
沒有留言:
發佈留言