memorandum upon official intercourse by mr. c. arendt., September 28, 1879

memorandum upon official intercourse by mr. c. arendt.

With reference to the form of correspondence between Chinese and foreign officials of unequal rank it is my opinion:

1. That the term “cha hsing,” which has been in use until now for dispatches from governors-general to consuls, &c., and which, in Article XI of the treaty of Nanking (Mayers, p. 3), is translated by “declaration,” but in reality designates an “instruction” sent from a higher official to a direct subordinate, should be completely abolished.

But I hold also that—

2. The term “shin chin” or “shin chin,” translated by “statement” in the treaty of Nanking and by “memorial” in Article VII of the United States treaty of 1858 (Mayers, p. 86), which has been used by consuls writing to governors-general, is equally inadmissible. To prove this it is only necessary to keep before one’s eyes the facts that (a) according to fol. 11 vers. ult. of the first volume of the Chinese official quarterly almanac, subordinate civil officers in writing to the superior provincial authorities make use of the characters “shen wen,” (b) that the inspector-general of customs in addressing the Tsung-li Yamên employes the characters “shen cheng.” This shows that the character and its combinations should only be used by subordinates addressing their direct superiors, and are not fit therefore for correspondence between foreign and Chinese officials.

3. In trying to find other expressions for those to be discarded in future, I understand the task before us to be to substitute for them characters which have upon them no mark whatever of either superiority or inferiority, or equality of rank or position, on the one side or the other.

Such a general expression containing simply the idea of official correspondence without any by-thought seems to be supplied by the Chinese characters “wen yi,” which indicate simply the transmission “yi” of an official document (“wen”) from any civil or military officer to another, as is proved by many passages in the official Chinese quarterly almanac (1. 1. and fol. 16, 199, of the part treating of military officers).

For there it is said at every moment that as regards the mutual transmission of official documents addressed by the one to the other (“wen yi”), this one will use such and the other such characters. “Wen yi” seems to me, therefore, to be the general term needed for the purpose before us.

4. I hold, therefore, that the characters “wen yi” would form a very appropriate basis for dispatches from the governor-general, or any other very high officer, to a consul-general or consul, and vice versa; or from an official lower than a taotai to a consul or consul-general, and vice versa, with one word for all cases when officials of unequal rank, or considered an such, write to each other in an official form.

5. To show the manner in which this system would work, in detail, the following remarks will suffice:

I. In the body and at the end of the dispatch where in the dispatches between the Yamên and the legations or consuls and taotais the characters “wei chas hui shih,” “so and so sends a chao hui or communication,” are employed at present, we would write in the above-named cases “wei wen yi shih,” “so and so hereby transmits a dispatch.”

The expression corresponding to” wei tzu chas hui,” “therefore I send this chao hui, or communication,” would be “wei tzu wen yi,” “therefore I send this official document,” for “hsee chih chao hui che” “a necessary communication,” it would be “hsee chih wen yi che” “a dispatch necessary to be sent,” and for “yo chao hui” “the above is a communication sent to so and so” it would be “yo wen yi,” “the above official paper is sent to so and so.”

II. On the title page of the dispatch, where the yamên, legations, &c., at present use the words “chao hui,” “a communication,” as a noun substantive, I believe, for idiomatical reasons, that a transposition of the characters wen yi would be recommendable, and one should write “yi wen” “a dispatch to be transmitted.” So also in the body of the dispatch for “I have received your chao hui” it should be I think “I have received your wen yi.”

III. The characters “lai wen,” literally the dispatch that has come from you, i. e. “your dispatch,” which occur frequently in chao huis, ought not to be changed in dispatches between officials of unequal ranks.

IV. Where the writer wants to express the idea of reply, characters such as “fu wen” “a dispatch in reply,” corresponding to “chao fu” “a communication in reply,” and “wen fun” “to reply in an official form,” ought to be used.

V. On the envelope of the dispatch, the characters used in chas huis communications between the Yamên and legations, &c., viz: “kung wen tsze chih,” “a paper on public business sent to so and so” ought either to remain unchanged “or yi wen tsze chih” “an official missive sent to so and so,” substituted for them. The former expression seems to me preferable for merely international reasons.

Where on the envelope of communications (chas huis) the words “tang tai k’ai ch’ai, to be opened on his raised platform,” appear in Peking, the likewise common phrase “tang tiang k’ai ch’ai,” “to be opened in his hall,” might be used by governors-general writing to consuls, &c., but as a mere form of politeness, consuls writing to governors-general, &c., might retain the former phrase, “to be opened on his raised platform.”

VI. The use of the character “kai-in” addressing the person to whom the dispatch is written, as “kai ling shih,” “the consul in question,” should be entirely discarded and “kuei ling shih,” “the honorable consul,” and so on, invariably substituted for it.

VII. The principle of elevation of characters to the top of the column or above it, should be the same in the new form of dispatches as it has been until now in chao huis, and no deviation of any kind from it be permitted.

VIII.

VIII. It ought to be expressly stipulated that the whole phraseology of the dispatch should be in accordance with the general principle, and no expression indicating superiority be admitted nor any expression indicating inferiority be demanded.

6. Whilst, therefore, the new form of wen yi would be applicable in every case without hurting sensibilities on either part, so that also, for instance, I think, a consul might well accept this form from an inferior Chinese official, I hold on the other hand that the form of chao hui, which by the established usage of long years, though not in its original Chinese application, is expressive of absolute equality, might be conveniently retained in all those cases in which it has hitherto been made use of. So that there would be two, but only two, forms, the chao hui in all cases where it has existed until now, and the wen yi for all other cases without exception.

7. I would think it important to stipulate that, besides the seal, no other circles, marks, &c., in red ink, should be admissible neither in chao huts nor in wen yis, as they are a decided sign of superiority on the part of the writer.

The number of columns on one page ought to be in all cases mutually the same between foreign and Chinese officials.

8. As the term chao hui has become, as already mentioned, in the course of time an explicit expression of perfect equality (by which it differs from the entirely general term of wen yi), its extension to all other cases would probably not only meet with much opposition on the part of the Chinese, but also be less acceptable to consuls, &c., receiving dispatches from inferior Chinese officials.

9. As there is, in fact, nothing to find fault with in the form of chao hui as hitherto in use, I do not think it would either be necessary or convenient to extend the form of wen yi to those cases in which, until now, chao hui has been employed.

10. About the correspondence in the form of half official and friendly letters, nothing need be said. It has to my knowledge never given rise to objections on the one part or the other, and may remain as it was (only it might be well to stipulate that the character pi instead of pên must never be used and cannot be demanded).

I think it only right to state at the end, that by far the greatest part of the above arguments have not originated with myself but have been supplied to me in conversation with my colleagues and others. So, before all, the reference to the Chinese official almanac, only some of the details have been worked out by me.