Articlesgreat volume, which includes Fan yi gu wen (334-8, the same content as in 334-29), Man Han he bi Lu yu ji cui si juan (Manju nikan hergen kamcibuha lioi ioi ji z’ui bithe) (334-9), Xiao xue (in Manchu) (334-23, Diagram 1), Man Han he bi gu wen (334-29, the same content as in 334-8). So what do these Chinese classics (as represented by Confucian writings) teach us about the nature and significance of Manchu literature?Even before it succeeded in making Beijing its capital in the first year of Shunzhi (1644), the Qing dynasty had already established the Literature Institute13 and had begun the work of translating Chinese classics into Manchu. By the sixth year of Tienzong (1632), it was already undertaking the translation of Mengzi into Manchu together with Zi zhi tong jian, Liu Tao, and San guo zhi ji jie.14 It would appear that this enterprise was undertaken for the same reason that the Yuan dynasty (founded by the Mongolians in the thirteenth century) wasted no time in translating a large volume of Chinese classics. Furthermore, the enterprise was a measure to deal with the ideological issue surrounding China’s traditional Sino-centrism (the Sino-barbarian dichotomy), which challenged the legitimacy of the Qing dynasty, and as such was an issue that Qing had to face in order to rule Inner China. At this point, we should discuss a range of issues, including a comparative analysis with the Yuan dynasty. However, due to constraints of space, I will provide only one example of a reference to the ideological issue of the legitimacy of the Qing dynasty. This reference is from Lun yu, one of Si shu of Cheng-Zhu School Confucianism, which continued to be the state religion during the Qing dynasty, as it was in the Ming dynasty. Below, I have provided a line from Lun yu 3.5 in its original form.子曰、夷狄之有君、不如諸夏之亡也。Yoshikawa Kojiro has written a concise commentary on the issues concerning the interpretation of this saying, so I will quote it here despite its length.(Confucius says) The Yi and Di barbarian tribes (夷狄) with rulers are not as viable as the various Chinese states (諸夏) without them.“Various Chinese states” (諸夏) refers to the land of China thought at the time to be the center of the world, and as such it has connotations of jingoism and self-confidence. “The Yi and Di” (夷狄), on the other hand, denote the uncivilized tribes that lived on the periphery of China. The Yi and Di are the barbarians, and the Chinese states represent the civilized realm. Even with rulers, the Yi and Di lack civilization. As for the Chinese states, even if they were to lack rulers, the civilization there would continue to flourish unabated. Thus, the barbarian tribes with rulers do not even come up to the level of China without them. Such was the view of pre-Song scholars such as Huang Kan and Xing Bing, who stated the ancient commentaries, specifically He Yan’s Ji jie. However, the ancient commentaries, citing Bao Shi, simply mention that “諸夏” means “various Chinese states” and that “亡” means “without” (as in “without rulers”). It is thus uncertain whether the ancient commentaries themselves shared this view.The idea that civilization only existed in China and that all other lands were uncivilized is what is known as Sino-centrism, and this ideology existed in China from very early on in its history. Thus, this passage of the analects would normally have been read in the way described above.However, having probably reflected on the excessively provocative nature of such a view, Neo-Confucian scholars came up with a new interpretation. The new interpretation was that even the Yi and Di barbarian 003