Articlesshi shang li an of the 59th volume, “Translation,” of “Qin ding ke chang tiao li,” published in the second year of Xianfeng (1852), states the following:項拠喀甯等考試八旗各処満洲教習人等、進呈試巻。内風俗字様、倶繙 an kooli, 此雖係旧定成語。但初定時已失字意矣、久行不易者、始謂之kooli随時人之常習謂之風俗。理宜繙作geren i tacin. 所有進呈試巻已経改正、将此著交繙訳房、将清文鑑照依改正、宣示各処遵行。従前徳通在時所繙清語内、阿岱不暁者甚多。阿岱善於清語何至不暁。究係徳通固執漢文、拘泥成語、不能取意、以至繙成漢文語気、阿岱始不能明晰。是以彼時会降旨暁諭衆人。凡繙清必順満文取意繙訳。方可令人易暁不然棄舎満文気。因循漢文繙訳、則竟至失卻満文旧規、著将此通行各処。嗣後一切繙清、必遵朕屢次訓旨、遵照満文旧規取意繙訳。断不可拘泥漢文繙訳。欽此。A loose translation is as follows: In the answer sheets issued in the Translation Examination, the Manchu translation of the Chinese word 風俗 (customs) is ‘an kooli.’ Since this is an idiom established a long time ago that has already lost much its meaning today, it is an inappropriate word choice. 風俗 should instead be translated as ‘geren i tacin.’ This rescript shall be conveyed to the translation office in charge. The national language dictionary, that is to say the Qing Language Survey, shall be revised, and the relevant departments shall be instructed to comply. It is highly regrettable that there seems to be a tendency to select Manchu words without paying due attention to their original meaning. Henceforth, thoroughgoing efforts must be made to ensure that future translations are carried out with due regard to the original meaning of the Manchu words, and translators must not be influenced too much by the Chinese (source text.)Thus, the translated content was changed significantly during the years of Qianlong as a result of major revisions made to the translations of the classics (for example, new translated terms that used the Manchu language more accurately were established).16 There is, therefore, a considerable disparity between the content of the Chinese classics translations before Qianlong and the content afterward, making it difficult to judge the situation of translations before the Qianlong years. Incidentally, Manchu translations of Si shu published before the Qianlong years are extremely rare, particularly the ones published during the years of Kangxi. Upon seeing with my own eyes the edition from the thirtieth year of Kanxi translation of Si shu (in Manchu and Chinese), which is stored in the library of the Minzu University of China, I found many interesting details that are of great interest to anyone investigating the circumstances in which the Qing era translations of Si shu were carried out. For example, not only was this edition entirely different from the translated content of the Yu zhi fan yi Si shu (in Manchu and Chinese) published in the twentieth year of Qianlong, in the Manchu text the changing of lines takes place from right to left in accordance with Chinese transcription form, which is the reverse of the original Manchu transcription form. Moreover, the beginning of the book contains a preface by the Kangxi emperor regarding the translation of Si shu into Manchu. Such a characteristic is not only witnessed in Si shu, but also in the Five Classics and other classic Chinese literature. When using the original Chinese texts as a basis to examine the interpretation of Chinese classics through various, multi-angled approaches, it is extremely helpful to use the Mongol and Manchu translations to get an idea of how these classics were interpreted during the Yuan and Qing dynasties. As far as I can tell, however, there is scarcely any research based on such a method. Therefore, the 005