Manchu translations of Chinese classics in the Qing era hold immense significance, and there is an urgent need to shed light on the full facts.II Manchu Material Published in the Multilingual FormatWe will now discuss the nature and significance of the Manchu material that was published in the multilingual format. Because the multilingual format is focused on discussion, as the Chinese classics discussed earlier were originally written in Chinese, a large proportion of the translations of such texts were published in the multilingual format. We have just discussed how there are discrepancies in the translated content and how such discrepancies are reflective of the changing times. The point that I wish to make in this chapter concerns a separate issue. Multilingual material generally refers to books in which the same content is presented in multiple languages. In some cases, the same book contains multiple languages, and in other cases, Manchu books and Chinese books were produced separately. Examples of the former include imperial archives, such as palace memorials, and examples of the latter include veritable records, such as “precedents.” When researchers study such documents, it is imperative that they make a comparison of both language versions. It cannot, however, be said that such comparative analysis has ever really been undertaken. The lack of comparative analysis can probably be attributed to a notion among scholars that it is simply a case of the same content being presented in two different forms. Such an attitude leaves scholars prone to believing that it is sufficient to rely exclusively on either the Chinese text or the Manchu text alone. However, if one actually attempts such a comparative examination, one will find that there are many cases where the contents of the two language versions differ from each other. Furthermore, since Manchu is very different from Chinese linguistically, such a comparison will offer up new insights. For example, it will resolve and clarify much that would have remained opaque if one was only studying one or the other of the language versions. I would like to cite two cases that demonstrate this point. The first is an example of how the content of a document can be better understood precisely because it presents the same content in two languages.A highly significant Manchu-Chinese document from the imperial archives that gives an account of the history of China-Ryukyu relations is Ge ke shi shu, which is stored in the National Palace Museum of Taiwan. In Ge ke shi shu, various types of memorials are arranged chronologically and filed under each of the six ministries of the Censorate (the ministries of Personnel, Revenue, Rites, Defense, Justice, and Works). There are a total of 234 volumes stored in the Palace Museum. In all of these volumes, each memorial is presented in both Manchu and Chinese. Shown below is the breakdown of the volumes by year according to Qing dai wen xian dang an zong mu, National Palace Museum.17Records of the Ministry of Personnel:Daoguang Year 17 (1 volume)Daoguang Year 22 (1 volume)Daoguang Year 23 (1 volume)Xianfeng Year 8 (23 volumes)Xianfeng Year 9 (11 volumes)Xianfeng Year 10 (12 volumes)Xianfeng Year all years (1 volume)006MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5