A Reinterpretation on The Calendar Case (1664-1665) — Focusing on the Analysis of narhūšaha bithe dangse —

"A Reinterpretation on The Calendar Case (1664-1665) : Focusing on the Analysis of narhūšaha bithe dangse." Myŏng Ch'ŏng sa yŏn'gu (Journal of Ming-Qing Historical Studies) 56 (2021): 119–185.

｢‘曆獄’(1664.9-1665.9)에 대한 재고찰 ― 淸朝 機密 司法 文書 『祕本檔』(narhūšaha bithe dangse)에 대한 분석을 중심으로 ―｣,『明清史研究』56, 2021, pp.119-185.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ECZpXfEPM39KxXKHktruz6SDKI3X9Qm3/view?usp=drive_link

This article reexamined the so-called Calendar Case (liyu 曆獄, 1664.9–1665.9) by using narhūšaha bithe dangse [the secret Manchu document] and reconstructed the specific legal process, accusations against Xiyang individuals, legal grounds for those accusations, and the Qing government’s final judgement. This analysis reached the conclusion that although the final arbiter’s intervention such as the imperial amnesty (enshe 恩赦), which could override the regular judicial process, was able to save missionaries and Christians from severe punishment, the results of the judicial process still remained valid. Those results included: that in the first subcase triggered by Yang’s petition entitled “To Exterminate Heretical Teachings”, Christianity was pronounced to be heretical teaching; in the second subcase, concerning Prince Rong’s burial, those involved were judged guilty of High Treason (dani 大逆); and in the third subcase, concerning the Old-New methods conflict, the Qing authorities acknowledged at least five of the Xiyang missionaries’ actions against the Old method to be illegal. This chapter also spotlighted several historical facts: First, in Subcase 1, for the charges of Plotting Treason (moupan 謀叛) and High Treason, the Qing centre did not acknowledge from the very beginning of the legal process; Second, also in Subcase 1, although it was according to the statute of Zao yaoshu yaoyan 造妖書妖言 [Writing Books on Sorcery or Speaking about Sorcery] that Christianity was announced heretical teachings, in enforcing punishment the statute of Jinzhi shiwu xieshu 禁止師巫邪術 [Prohibition Concerning Sorcerers and Sorceress] was employed; Third, during the Calendar Case, in adjusting the penalty weight for the bannerman the Qing government relied on the decision of the 13th year of the Shunzhi Reign, not the decision of the 18th year of the Shunzhi Reign, and that was because the Qing Code at the point of the judgement contained the decision of the 13th year of the Shunzhi Reign, not the decision of the 18th year of the Shunzhi Reign; Fourth, the proceedings of the Calendar Case revealed the Qing Empire’s future policy orientations regarding the Xiyang affairs and that quite consistent tendency in the orientation was not merely the product of any individual ruler, but rather the result of a collective decision making by the ruling group from a long term perspective for their empire; Fifth, although the Calendar Case appeared in the form of anti-Christian incident, the essence of that incident, in fact, resided in anti-foreign sentiments and Han-centrism engrained deeply in Han Chinese society, which would explode into anti-Manchuism, or even Han nationalism, if some conditions are met.