tribes have their rulers, and they are not like present China without rulers or a system of government. In other words, the Yi and Di with rulers cannot be compared to China without rulers.Moreover, when China was ruled by the “foreign tribes” of the Yuan and Qing dynasties, this Lun yu would often pose a problem. Take for example, the case of Huang Kan’s Lun yu ji jie yi shu. This text, which had been lost in China early on, was first printed in Japan in the mid-eighteenth century by Ogyu Sorai’s student Nemoto Sonshi, and then imported back to China. At the end of the century, after the order by the emperor Qianlong a court edition was printed. In this court edition, Huang Kan’s original commentary was thoroughly reworded so that it became very similar to Cheng-Zhu’s view. Huang Kan’s interpretation was that even with rulers, the barbarians could never come up to the level of Chinese civilization, and as such, it was an inconvenient interpretation from the perspective of the Qianlong emperor, since he happened to be a “barbarian ruler” from Manchuria.This Lun yu would also have aroused various controversies in Japan. It is my hope that political historians and historians of political ideas take note of this.15Yoshikawa’s argument could not be any clearer. In fact, in Yu zhi fan yi Si shu, which contains “Yu zhi xu”, which was compiled with a preface by the Qianlong emperor dated the fourteenth day of the twelfth month of the twentieth year of Qianlong (1755), Lun yu is translated as follows (The Möllendorff transliteration of the Manchu text and the translation below were done by the author).fudz hendume, tulergi aiman, ejen bisire be sara bade, dulimbai gurun i elemangga akπ i gese adali akπ kai.The Master said: In the condition that the foreign tribes understand that they have rulers, do not be fooled into thinking that their situation is equivalent to China in the opposite condition, that is to say, without rulers.As you can see, this translation is in line with the new interpretation. So other than the Analects, what were the circumstances and characteristics of the Manchu translations of Si shu?I have already mentioned how Mengzi was already being translated into Manchu before the Qing dynasty began. It appears that the Manchu translations of Si shu reached a certain state of completion later on during the reign of emperor Kangxi, and the “thirtieth year of Kangxi (1691) edition” of Si shu (Manchu-Chinese) is now stored in the library of the Minzu University of China. A number of revisions were made to this bilingual publication. After Xin ke Man Han zi si shu was published in the eleventh year of Yongzheng (1733), and the six volumes of Si shu (Manchu only) were published in the sixth year of Qianlong (1741), the Yu zhi fan yi Si shu (in Manchu and Chinese) finally appeared in the twentieth year of Qianlong. What requires attention here is the fact that the content of the translation published before the Qianlong years differs considerably from the content of the translation published after the Qianlong years. For example, the emperor’s preface to Yu zhi zeng ding Qing wen jian, dated the thirty-sixth year of Qianlong (1771), states the following:綜計続入新定国語五千余句。若古官名、冠服、器用、鳥獣、花果等、有裨参考者、別為補篇、系之巻末。The preface says that the book contains “over 5,000 newly established words (relating to Manchu translations).” In addition, the Imperial Edict, dated the fifty-second year of Qianlong (1787), contained in Fan yi xiang hui 004MODERN ASIAN STUDIES REVIEW Vol.5