The Comprehensive Manchu-Han Banquet: History, Myth, and Development - Brill
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
brill.com/mqyj
The Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet:
History, Myth, and Development
Isaac Yue
University of Hong Kong
isaacyue@hku.hk
Abstract
In* terms of grandeur and extravagance, modern Chinese society tends to think of
the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 滿漢全席 as the pinnacle of China’s culi-
nary heritage. Its allure is best illustrated by what happened in 1977, when the Tokyo
Broadcasting System (TBS) commissioned a Hong Kong restaurant named Kwok Bun
國賓酒樓 to recreate the banquet according to its “original” recipes. The preparation
took over three months, involved more than one hundred and sixty chefs, and resulted
in a meal that featured more than one hundred dishes.1 Since then, there has been
no shortage of efforts made by different individuals, restaurants, and organizations to
follow suit and recreate the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet in a contemporary
setting. These different endeavours commonly claim that they follow the most authen-
tic recipes. Little did they realise that there is no such thing as an authentic recipe. In
fact, historians cannot even agree on which era saw the banquet begin, though the
leading candidates all date to the Qing dynasty (1644–1911); these are the reign of the
Emperor Kangxi (r. 1661–1722), the reign of the Emperor Qianlong (r. 1735–1796), and
the dynasty’s last decades.
This paper examines the accuracy of these claims by analyzing a sample menu for
the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet recorded during Qianlong’s reign. This
menu contains crucial information about the feast’s formative stages, information that
* My gratitude goes to Pio Kuo, Loretta Kim, and Tang Pui Ling for their invaluable assistance. I
am also grateful to the Hsu Long-sing Research Fund for its financial support which enabled
me to carry out this project. All translations are mine, unless otherwise indicated.
1 A brief documentation of this event accompanied by some rare photos can be found in Chen
Zhihan’s 陳植漢 book on the subject entitled A Comprehensive Account of the Manchu–Han
Banquet 滿漢全席大全. This event was parodied in the 1995 Hong Kong feature film of the
same name (English title: The Chinese Feast), starring Leslie Cheung, Anita Yuen, Kenny Bee,
and Law Kar-ying.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/24684791-12340022
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access94 Yue
has not yet been properly addressed by academics researching this topic. By drawing
attention to the traditional dietary customs of ethnic Manchus and Han Chinese, un-
derstood in the context of contemporaneous Chinese gastronomy (to supplement the
menu’s lack of contextual information), this paper provides a better understanding of
the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet and of Chinese gastronomy in general, in
terms of their history, development, and cultural significance.
Keywords
Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet – Kangxi – Qianlong – Yuan Mei – fusion
cuisine
One of the most popular misconceptions surrounding the Comprehensive
Manchu–Han Banquet is the attribution of its invention to the Emperor
Kangxi (1654–1722, r. 1661–1722). For example, in a recent interview about the
banquet’s history in Hong Kong, Yang Weixiang 楊維湘, honorary president
of the Association for Hong Kong Catering Services Management (HKCSM),
who has published widely on the Hong Kong culinary scene since the 1970s
(often under the pen name Lufu 魯夫), reiterates this belief by stating that
Manchu–Han fusion cuisine owes its invention to Kangxi and the creative staff
in his imperial kitchen (Zhonghua chuyi xueyuan 54). According to this myth,
the Manchu emperor, troubled by the escalating tension between his Han and
Manchu ministers which threatened to tear his empire apart, created the idea
of a fusion meal that made equal use of Han and Manchu ingredients and
cooking methods as a gesture to signal harmony between the two ethnicities.
He ordered his kitchen staff to organize the banquet and then invited officials
of both ethnicities into the Imperial city to take part in his celebration. The
result was a meal so grand that it lasted three full days, and it became as much
a display of the Emperor’s fairness and indiscrimination as it did a testimony
to China’s culinary excellence.
As captivating as this story may be, no contemporaneous document has
ever been found to lend credibility to this claim. It seems highly improbable,
if such a banquet occurred, that none of the people who participated—from
the high ranking ministers to the thousands who helped to prepare it—left any
kind of textual record. Notwithstanding, this story continues to be a favorite
topic in Chinese popular culture, and is perpetually repeated in contempo-
rary novels, films, and television programs. Although the tale has no historical
basis, it is not difficult to see how Kangxi became its central figure. The term
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 95
“Manchu–Han Meal” 滿漢飯 first appeared in the Annals 歷年記, which was
published during Kangxi’s reign, albeit without “comprehensive” and using
“meal” 飯 instead of “banquet” (Yao 11). In addition, Kangxi was keenly aware
of the importance of food to Chinese society, and that understanding inspired
him to stage elaborate banquets as a way to enhance his reputation and con-
solidate power. For example, one of the first problems he faced after his ascen-
sion to the throne in 1661 was the military threat posed by scattered Mongolian
clans that continued to wreak havoc on border towns along the empire’s north-
ern frontier. In order to pacify these nomadic warriors, Kangxi introduced the
tradition of inviting Mongolian princes to attend an annual feast within the
walls of the Forbidden City. According to the Classified Collection of Notes from
the Qing Dynasty 清稗類鈔:
When the Mongolian princes came to the Capital City, they always
brought some food back with them, saying that it will bring good for-
tune back to their home. If they lack the proper vessels to carry the food,
they would not hesitate to wrap the food in fine garments. They did not
seem to mind the food and its juices soiling the elaborate stitches and the
threads of their robes.
Xu 13.6275
This practice, known among historians as the Mongolian Vassal Banquet
蒙古親藩宴, was maintained until the end of the Qing dynasty. Kangxi’s suc-
cess at handling these Mongolian princes encouraged him to adopt similar
strategies when dealing with the autonomous vassal clans of Outer Mongo-
lia. For the Outer Jaseg princes, he organized another annual banquet, named
by historians the Nine-White Banquet 九白宴 because each year these Outer
Jaseg princes would bring with them one white camel and eight white horses
to be presented to the Emperor as tribute.2 Historians such as Liao Yang 廖楊
believe that these banquets were instrumental to bringing peace to the north-
ern regions, which allowed Kangxi to focus his attention elsewhere, bringing
prosperity to the Qing empire.
2 Following the fall of the Northern Yuan regime of Inner Mongolia in 1635 and the crush-
ing defeat of the Khalkha Mongolians of Outer Mongolia by the Zunghars in 1690, the Qing
government assumed official rule over both regions (with boundaries extending beyond the
border of present-day Mongolia to the Qalqa and Dörbed regions), a rule that lasted for
the next two hundred years. To facilitate administration, the Qing government recognized the
twenty-four tribes (forty-nine banners in total) based in Inner Mongolia as Inner Jaseg.
The remaining tribes were designated as Outer Jaseg and allowed to retain their own lan-
guage and culture, giving them a much higher degree of autonomy than the former.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access96 Yue
But perhaps nowhere was Kangxi’s fondness for staging grandiloquent ban-
quets exhibited more prominently than in the third month of 1713, when he
sent invitations to one thousand elderly persons, aged sixty or over, to gath-
er at his imperial retreat for a grand feast to celebrate his sixty-first birthday.
According to one report, more than three thousand elders attended this event
as guests of honor, and the Emperor was so pleased that he spontaneously com-
posed a poem that gave the celebration its name, the Feast of One Thousand
Elders 千叟宴 (Lin and Wang 280). The event’s success caused the Emperor to
host an even grander banquet in 1722 to celebrate his seventieth birthday. This
gesture effectively turned the banquet into one of the longest-lasting culinary
traditions of the Qing dynasty, which subsequent emperors practiced until the
beginning of the Republican era.
In Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives,
Chang Kwang-chih famously proclaimed “That Chinese cuisine is the greatest
in the world is highly debatable and is essentially irrelevant. But few can take
exception to the statement that few other cultures are as food oriented as the
Chinese” (11). Although it is unlikely that Chang wrote this passage with Kangxi
in mind, his observation offers an apt description of the political vision of the
Emperor, who saw food as a means to bring people together and achieve ef-
fective governance. The fact that, in his regular diet, Kangxi actually preferred
vegetables over meat and simplicity over extravagance further illustrates the
extent to which he understood the importance of food to his subjects, and
the conscious decision he made to draw upon it as a means of consolidating
his legacy.3
Based on Kangxi’s apparent understanding of the unique role of food as a
cultural symbol, and on his propensity to exploit that role for political gain, it
is certainly not inconceivable that he concocted the idea of a fusion meal like
the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet and used it as a political scheme to
appease his subjects. Contemporaneous reports have validated the existence
of comparable events, such as the Nine White Banquet and the Feast of One
Thousand Elders. However, the lack of documents from this period linking
the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet to Kangxi casts legitimate doubt
on this story’s veracity. Moreover, until the 1698 publication of the Annals,
which mentions something called the Manchu–Han Meal (but lacking the
word “comprehensive” and any other details), there is simply no record of any
3 In Aphorisms and Lectures from the Court 庭訓格言, a text written by Kangxi in which he
communicates his idea of virtues and morality to his children, he discloses his personal view
regarding health and diet as follows: “Exercise restraint in eating, cautiousness in living. This
is the recipe to good health” (8).
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 97
banquet of this nature to be found in any text published during the reign of
Kangxi. Therefore, without new evidence, the attribution of the banquet’s in-
vention to Kangxi remains highly questionable.
Meanwhile, another popular school of thought dates the banquet to
Qianlong’s reign, not Kangxi’s. Supporters of this theory have traditionally and
comfortably based their hypothesis on Recipes from the Sui Garden 隨園食單
and Notes of the Yangzhou Pleasure Boat 揚州畫舫錄, both datable to Qianlong’s
time and both mentioning something called the “Manchu–Han Banquet”
滿漢席. Historians such as Tao Wentai 陶文台 believe this to be an early form
of the banquet before the standardization of its name, to which was added
the term ‘comprehensive’ 全.4 For many years, this theory was believed to be
unassailable, until it was challenged by Zhao Rongguang 趙榮光 in the early
2000s. Drawing attention to a text entitled Lotus Raft 蓮花筏, published be-
tween 1821 and 1850, Zhao and his supporters champion the notion that Lotus
Raft not only mentions the Manchu–Han Banquet, but also elaborates on its
nature as unmistakably fusion. This led to their conclusion that until Lotus
Raft, any other mention of similar terms (including in Sui Garden and Pleasure
Boat) provided only a name with little contextual information. Therefore, it is
impossible to determine whether any banquet mentioned before Lotus Raft
was in fact truly a fusion meal. To further our investigation, let us first take
some time to contemplate Zhao’s theorisation, which I refer to as the late-Qing
hypothesis.
To begin, as mentioned above, the term “Manchu–Han Meal” first appeared
in the late 1600s in a text known as the Annals, in which the author, a scholar
named Yao Tinglin 姚廷遴 (1628–?), tried to record everything that he felt was
noteworthy over the course of seventy years. Although the term in question ac-
tually reads “Manchu–Han Meal” rather than “Comprehensive Manchu–Han
Banquet”, a number of historians have become sufficiently convinced of a con-
nection between the two (at least seeing “Meal” as precursor to “Banquet”) to
claim the late 1600s as the point in time when fusion cuisine first entered the
Chinese culinary lexicon. According to the Annals, in the year 1694, a newly
appointed official named Fan Chengxun 范成勛 (?–?) arrived in Jiangxi to
take up a governmental position. Eager to gain his favor, the local gentry in-
vited Fan to a celebration in honor of his arrival. We do not know how Fan
4 One of the earliest studies to trace the origin of the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet
to Pleasure Boat is Tao Wentai’s 陶文台 influential history of Chinese culinary culture. Its
impact could still be seen today as Wu Zhengge 吳正格, in his 2015 monograph on the
Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet, continues to argue for the relevance of Pleasure Boat
in the developmental history of this banquet.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access98 Yue
reacted to this gesture, but he was recorded to have received an extravagant
“Manchu–Han Meal featuring silk curtains in five colors and red carpets” (Yao
126–27). Because of its namesake, this meal enjoyed by Fan Chengxun is com-
monly believed to have been an early form of the Comprehensive Manchu–
Han Banquet and is seen as proof that fusion cuisine has been known in China
since the 1600s.
This view was challenged by Zhao Rongguang in his pioneering and exhaus-
tive study of the subject. Zhao’s criticism is twofold. One, despite the similar
terminology, Yao Tinglin’s account is brief and devoid of any useful contextual
information. Therefore, no one can ascertain whether the meal he cites actu-
ally describes the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet, as it is understood
today, or even a precursor. Two, classical Chinese texts do not use punctuation.
As a consequence, it is entirely possible that Yao intended the expression to
read “Manchu and Han meal” instead of “Manchu–Han Meal”, and that Fan
was treated to two separate meals, one Manchu and the other Han in ori-
gin, rather than to a single fusion banquet. Following this logic, Zhao further
discredits the evocation of similar terms in documents like Yuan Mei’s 袁枚
(1716–1797) Sui Garden and its contemporaneous Pleasure Boat (for which Yuan
wrote a preface) as proof that fusion gastronomy was practiced in China since
the reign of Qianlong.
To further validate his view, Zhao cites the Imperially Endorsed, Collected
Administrative Statutes, and Precedents of the Great Qing State 欽定大清會典
則例 and the Documents of the Household of the Duke of Yansheng 衍聖公府
檔案, which both mention separate Manchu and Han meals, as evidence that
society was accustomed to viewing (and consuming) these two ethnic cuisines
individually rather than as a single fusion meal. The first text was compiled
under Kangxi’s imperial mandate and follows a convention for statutes estab-
lished by the Collected Administrative Statutes and Precedents of the Great Ming
State 大明會典. A section pertaining to running the imperial kitchen lists the
“Manchu Banquet” and “Han Banquet” as two separate types of meals enjoyed
by the Emperor. The latter text belongs to a collection of documents from
the household of the Duke of Yansheng (a title conferred on a descendant of
Confucius). It also mentions the Manchu and Han meals as regular but distinct
features of the Duke’s table. These two texts demonstrate the extent to which
gourmets of the time enjoyed the cuisines of both ethnic groups. More impor-
tantly, Zhao interprets the separate sources of these documents—which hap-
pen to trace back to two of the most innovative kitchens of the time—and the
separate listing of these meals as proof that fusion cuisine was not yet known
in Chinese gastronomy.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 99
Before considering Zhao’s points, it is necessary for us to consider the two
ethnic cuisines in question and their determining characteristics, their histo-
ries, and some of the possible ways through which their distinctiveness could
be merged into a fusion banquet. Since the two ethnic groups first came into
contact with each other, Han Chinese inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom
have developed a habit of describing Manchurians as “bow-drawers” 引弓之
民 (Jin 2603). It is a direct reference to the nomadic lifestyle of these people
of the steppe, who had to rely on their skill with the bow to hunt for food and
subsist on a meat-based diet. However, as early as the Ming dynasty, when
cross-border exchanges increased in frequency, Manchurian dietary patterns
showed signs of a shift toward agriculture and an increased emphasis on plants
and vegetables. For example, at least one of the authors of the Veritable Records
of Emperor Yingzong of the Ming Dynasty 明英宗實錄 was in attendance when
a delegate of the early Manchurians, who at the time the Chinese called the
Jurchen tribe of Jianzhou 建州,5 visited China proper bearing gifts as tribute to
the Ming Emperor. He observed that on their way back home, the delegate de-
toured to visit some Chinese farmers from whom they purchased some cattle
to sow their own fields in the northeast (Sun 300.6374). This indicates that the
visitors were already practicing some forms of agriculture and had incorporat-
ed vegetables into their diet. Another example is found in a report written by a
Ming official named Lu Qiong 盧瓊 (?–?), who was exiled to the northeastern
region of the empire, where he was able to observe the lives of the Jianzhou
Jurchens up close. He describes the diet of these early Manchurians as remark-
ably “Chinese-like” (Mao 228.334). Although he does not offer any details re-
garding the actual content of their gastronomy, his words suggest a certain
degree of deviation from the conventional conception of the Manchurian diet
as strictly carnivorous, as might befit a name like “bow-drawer”. From these
reports, it may be possible to deduce the Manchurian dietary preference as
going through a transitional period during the Ming dynasty, when their life-
style gradually evolved from nomadic to agricultural, with vegetables becom-
ing a staple of their diet. This helps explain why, when Manchurian elites of the
Eight Banners first settled within the borders of China proper during the early
years of the Qing dynasty, they were able to quickly acclimate to local tastes
and willingly incorporated them into their traditional ethnic diet.
5 The Jurchen of Jianzhou is a sub-clan of the Jurchen from the north-eastern regions and the
direct ancestor of the Manchurian. In the year 1626, under Nurhaci 努爾哈赤 (1559–1626),
they officially changed the name of their clan to Manchurian.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access100 Yue
Yet despite this change of lifestyle from nomadic to agricultural, the con-
sumption of meat remained an integral part of Manchurian customs, to the
point that it was seen as a founding component of Manchurian cultural iden-
tity. For example, it has been documented that during festivities, Manchurian
noblemen often ended their celebration with a carnivorous feast, known as a
“meat gathering” 食肉之會. This practice continued until the end of the Qing
dynasty and participation in the meal was ideologically used as a means to
remember and celebrate their nomadic heritage. Below is a description of one
such gathering according to the Unofficial History of the Qing Dynasty 清朝野
史大觀:
Whenever the household of a nobleman engaged in a religious ritual, or
had a cause for celebration, it would be accompanied by a meat gath-
ering. Anybody could attend this gathering, regardless of whether they
knew the host or not, as long as they understood the custom. There was
no invitation; when the time came, the host would simply erect a reed
stage in his courtyard—with the roof of the stage exceeding the highest
point of his house. Inside, mats would be laid out on top of a red carpet
for the guests to sit on. Circles of eight, nine, or ten would be formed,
and when everybody became seated, the cook would present them with
a slab of meat, weighting approximately ten catties, served in a bronze
plate two feet in diameter. This would be followed by another bronze
bowl filled with the juice from the meat along with a bronze ladle. In
front of each guest, there would be a smaller bronze bowl eight to nine
inches in size for the sauce. Wine would be served in a shared large bowl,
from which the guests took turns to drink. The guests were expected to
bring their own sauces, papers, and pocket knives for helping themselves
to the meat. The more they cut and ate, the more joyful the host. Anyone
who shouted “more meat” repeatedly would be greeted by immense grat-
itude. On the contrary, anyone who failed to finish at least one plate of
meat would be met with contempt. The meat was cooked in plain hot
water; there was no salt or condiment involved, but it still tasted extreme-
ly fresh. The more skillful guests were the ones who could cut the meat
into wafer thin slices, where the fat and the meat were evenly distributed.
A Manchu with an enormous appetite would be able to consume up to
ten catties of meat in this manner. The host did not join the guests in eat-
ing; instead, his role was to wander from one end of the stage to another,
to make sure that everybody was well fed. According to tradition, guests
who were done eating would simply get up and take leave. They must not
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 101
thank the host or wipe their mouth, for thanking the host would mean
disrespecting the gods, and wiping their mouths would mean distracting
themselves from the act of eating.
Xiaoheng Xiangshi Zhuren 2.29
Events like this offer a rare glimpse into the nature of Manchurian gastronomy
prior to the founding of the Qing dynasty. Like the gastronomic cultures of
nomadic peoples around the world, it places a heavy emphasis on meat and a
simple cooking method (using only boiling water without the aid of salt or any
other condiment). The extent to which Manchurian cooking differs from Han
could not be greater, for the latter prides itself on flavouring food with a wide
range of staple ingredients and a great variety of condiments. This approach is
nicely encapsulated in the following scene from The Dream of the Red Chamber
紅樓夢, when Wang Xifeng 王熙鳳 treats Granny Liu 劉姥姥 to a bowl of au-
bergines during her first visit to Grand View Garden 大觀園. Amazed by its
taste, Liu asks Wang for the recipe and receives the following answer:
You pick the aubergines in the fourth or fifth month when they’re just
ripe, skin them, remove the pulp and pips and cut into thread-fine stripes
which you dry in the sun. Then you take the stock from one whole fat
boiling-fowl, put the dried aubergine stripes into a steamer and steam
them over the chicken stock until it’s nearly all boiled away. Then you
take them out and dry them in the sun again. You do that, steaming and
drying, steaming and drying by turns, altogether nine times. And it has to
be dried until it’s quite brittle. Then you store in a tightly-sealed jar, and
when you want to eat some, you take out about a saucerful and mix it
with fried slivers of chicken leg-meat before serving.
Cao 2.306–307
Despite the brevity of this account, it is important to note how even a basic
vegetable like the aubergine demanded the use of all three culinary charac-
teristics of Han culinary culture, in terms of ingredient, flavours, and cooking
method. Although the lifestyle of the Jia 賈 family, as depicted here, was avail-
able only to the more affluent households, the Comprehensive Manchu–Han
Banquet was also developed for members of this very social stratum. Therefore,
the style of gastronomy described here would most likely have served as a blue-
print for the Han aspect of this fusion banquet.
Such a reading is corroborated by Yuan Mei’s description of the Manchu–
Han Banquet:
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access102 Yue
In the gastronomic practice of today’s Court, one hears of a number of
terminologies that reference different things. These include the sixteen
dishes, eight vessels, and four appetizers, the Manchu–Han Banquet, the
eight small delicacies, and the ten gourmet dishes. In truth, these are all
bad practices of inferior chefs. Such frivolous displays are suitable only
if new relatives are here to pay a visit, or when a superior officer walks
in through the door. We may think of them as merely perfunctory acts of
duty, or superficialities which decorate embroidered tables and chairs.
Yuan 209
Regardless of whether the subject of Yuan’s description is one fusion cuisine
or two separate meals, it is evidently seen as an extravagant form of enter-
tainment, one that only the more affluent members of society can afford. This
means that when fusion cuisine first emerged on the Qing culinary scene, its
Han component was unlikely to deviate from the three characteristics dis-
cussed above—which Yuan considers to be frivolous. In other words, in the
context of Qing gastronomy, Manchu and Han cuisines were essentially at
odds with each other; whereas the former prided itself on being simple, virile,
and robust, the latter strived to improve in areas like splendor, novelty, and
delicacy. This contrast is an important dynamic that helped to propel the gus-
tatory uniqueness of the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet.
Having considered the qualities that define Manchu and Han cuisines and
how they could potentially fuse into a singular banquet, let us now turn our at-
tention to the evocation of the term “Manchu–Han Banquet” in Pleasure Boat
and the sample menu that is included in the text. According to Chang Jian-
hua 常建華, this text constitutes one of the greatest extant resources on the
social history of Yangshou during the Kangxi and Qianlong era (227). Little is
known about its author, Li Dou 李斗 (?–?), but he was evidently a good friend
of Yuan Mei, who wrote a preface for Pleasure Boat. Given their relationship
and the fact that they both resided in Yangzhou, even though neither author
provided sufficient contextual information to help readers deduce what they
meant by “Manchu–Han Banquet”, they were probably referring to the same
thing—whether it was one fusion cuisine, two separate meals, or something
else entirely. Fortunately, the term’s appearance in Pleasure Boat is followed
by a sample menu that gives some indication of the nature of the banquet in
question.
Because of the importance of this menu and the fact that it has never been
made available in English, my full translation follows:
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 103
The first serving contains five vessels and ten dishes:
Shredded chicken soup with swallow’s nest 燕窩雞絲湯
Pork tendon with sea cucumber 海參燴豬筋
Razor clam bouillon with shredded turnip 鮮蟶蘿蔔絲羹
Kelp and hog’s maw soup 海帶豬肚絲羹
Abalone with moneywort 鮑魚燴珍珠菜
Mussel and shrimp roe soup 淡菜蝦子湯
Crab and shark’s fin soup 魚翅螃蟹羹
Braised chicken and mushroom 蘑菇煨雞
“Pulley mace” 轆轤錘6
Fish maw with Chinese ham 魚肚煨火腿
Shark skin and chicken bouillon 鯊魚皮雞汁羹
Bloody vermicelli soup 血粉湯7
Rice made with soup stock 一品級湯飯碗
The second serving contains five vessels and ten dishes:
Braised bear paw with carp tongues 鯽魚舌燴熊掌
Gorilla lips (Venison) with rice dregs 米糟猩唇8
6 T he original Chinese name for this dish contains three characters: Lulu chui 轆轤錘. The
first two characters of lulu refer to a type of pulley system commonly used in Chinese wells
to help draw water from the bottom. The last character means either a hammer or a mace
and can be used as a noun (for the hammer or mace) or a verb (for the swinging action that
powers the weapon). In addition, the term may also refer to the water bucket attached to the
end of the lulu pulley system found in wells. In Chinese martial arts, the term Lulu chui can
also signify a power move in which a fighter swings his entire arm above his head to attack an
opponent, mimicking the attack of a hammer. However, it is unclear what this term means in
a culinary context; perhaps it refers to a unique technique involved in the preparation of this
dish or to the way it is presented at the table.
7 The three characters which make up this dish xuefen tang 血粉湯 respectively mean “bloody
vermicelli soup”. Its name is reminiscent of a traditional dish from Xi’an called fentang yangx-
ue 粉湯羊血, which is vermicelli served in a soup with lamb’s blood. It is unclear if the two
names describe the same dish. An alternative interpretation of this dish understands the
word fen as a reference to arrowroot, known as fenge 粉葛 in Chinese, which is a medicinal
herb frequently used as a soup ingredient.
8 The consumption of gorilla lips is first recorded in Lü’s Spring and Autumn Annals 呂氏春秋,
which lists it alongside grilled quanquan 獾獾 (a type of bird, not to be confused with quan
獾 which is the common name for badger in modern Chinese) as the two most delicious
types of meat. However, according to The External Record of Heilongjiang 黑龍江外記, back
in their nomadic days, the Manchurians were also known to favour dried vension meat which
the Han liked to refer to as gorilla lips, apparently because of their resemblance to each other
in colour and texture (Xi 251). It is unclear whether the dish in question here refers to venison
or actual gorilla lips, as the practice of consuming actual gorilla lips remained very much
alive, albeit rare, during the reigns of Kangxi and Qianlong. For example, in Random Notes
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access104 Yue
Pig brain 豬腦
Imitated leopard fetus 假豹胎
Steamed camel hump 蒸駝峰
Steamed civet served with sliced pears 梨片拌蒸果子狸
Steamed sika tail 蒸鹿尾
Soup with wild chicken slices 野雞片湯
Dry-aged pork slices 風豬片子9
Dry-aged lamb slices 風羊片子
Rabbit breast with curd stripes 兔脯奶房簽10
Rice made with soup stock 一品級湯飯碗
The third serving contains ten small white bowls:
Hog’s maw 豬肚
Imitation scallop 假江瑤
Duck’s tongue soup 鴨舌羹
Chicken and bamboo shoot congee 雞筍粥
Pig brain bouillon 豬腦羹
Smooth-scrambled egg 芙蓉蛋
Goose gizzard bouillon 鵝肫掌羹
Steamed shad with dregs 糟蒸鰣魚
Imitation grouper liver 假斑魚肝
Xi Shi curd 西施乳
at the Cottage of Close Scrutiny 閱微草堂筆記, Ji Yun 紀昀 (1724–1805) writes that al-
though he had never tasted this dish in person, he has heard of incidents in which gorilla
lips were presented to diners while still attached to the head of the gorilla. It was even
possible for consumers to make out the facial features of the gorilla, including its nose,
eyes, and eyebrows, before proceeding to consume its lips (366–367).
9 The only time this obscure dish is mentioned in literature is in the Gazette of the Libo
County 荔波縣志 (Anon 25.397). This text was compiled during the early Republican era;
the two earlier editions, dating from the Qing dynasty, make no mention of this dish.
Therefore, it is unclear whether it is the same dish as referenced in the Pleasure Boat
menu, and if so, how and when it was introduced to Yangzhou. But because of the lack
of further textual evidence, I have decided to treat them as closely related food types. In
Chinese, the name fengzhu 風豬 is translated literally as “wind pork”. Its name is derived
from its preparation, which requires cutting up and drying the pork in arid conditions.
This procedure is similar to the way modern chefs dry-age meat to enhance its flavor,
hence the translation.
10 The original Chinese name of this dish contains the term naifang 奶房, a somewhat
vulgar reference to the breast in modern Chinese. However, a Song dynasty recipe book
entitled Wu’s Recipes 吳氏中饋錄 mentions another dish with this same terminology in
its title. It is called naifang xuanzha 奶房旋鮓 and the author categorizes it under “curd”
(77). This categorization indicates that this term is in fact a reference to a type of curd.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 105
Wen Si’s Tofu soup 文思豆腐羹
Soft-shelled turtle slices in soup 甲魚肉片子湯
Cocoon bouillon 繭兒羹
Rice made with soup stock 一品級湯飯碗
The fourth serving contains twenty meat platters (or platters of fur and
blood 毛血盤):
Grilled ape 貜炙
Halba (blade steak) 哈爾巴
Suckling pig 小豬子
Deep-fried pork and lamb 油炸豬羊肉
Suspended roast chicken, goose, and duck 掛爐走油雞鵝鴨
Minced pigeon 鴿臛
Pork innards 豬雜什
Lamb innards 羊雜什
Charred pork and lamb 燎毛豬羊肉
Boiled pork and lamb 白煮豬羊肉
Steamed suckling pig, suckling lamb, 白蒸小豬子、小羊子、
chicken, duck, and goose 雞、鴨、鵝
Steamed white rolls 白麵餑餑卷子
Mixed grill 什錦火燒
Plum blossom bun 梅花包子
The fifth serving contains twenty items served on plates decorated with
foreign colors:11
Snacks served hot in twenty flavors 熱吃勸酒二十味
Twenty side dishes 小菜碟二十件
Dried fruits served on ten side tables 枯果十徹桌
Fresh fruits served on ten side tables 鮮果十徹桌
Note how different in style and content the dishes in the fourth serving are from
the rest. Having considered the importance of meat to traditional Manchurian
diet, and the simplicity of Manchurian cooking methods compared with those
11 The original term is yangdie 洋碟, short for yang caidie 洋彩碟, a type of ceramic arts
which first came into fashion during the reign of Yongzheng 雍正 (1678–1735, r. 1722–
1735). A 1738 report commissioned by Qianlong on the latest developments and technolo-
gies in ceramic art describes it as “a polished white vessel with multi-colored pictures in
the style of Western paintings. It is hence given the name “foreign color” (Tang 4.1168).
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access106 Yue
of Han cuisine, I believe that the fourth menu is entirely Manchurian in ori-
gin and the rest are derived from Han culinary tradition. This assumption is
further supported by the second item of the fourth serving, called haerba
哈爾巴, which recalls the Manchurian word halba for “shoulder”. The fact that
this name appears in only one other place—a contemporaneous text called
The Refinement of Taste within the Tripod 調鼎集, which names one of the
dishes listed in a menu for a “Manchu Banquet” as “White Halba” 白哈爾巴—
further testifies to the Manchurian origin of this dish and, by extension, of the
fourth serving in the Pleasure Boat menu.
As for the other four servings, their Han origin is equally apparent. In dishes
listed in the first, second, and third servings, many rare ingredients are uti-
lized, ranging from swallow’s nest to such seafood as razor clam, crab, and soft-
shelled turtle. Most of these ingredients are unavailable in northern China and
unknown to traditional Manchurian cuisine. They also draw upon a variety
of cooking techniques that were not native to Manchurian cooking, including
steaming and frying. However, by far the most convincing proof is found in
the inclusion of a number of signature dishes which bespeak their Han origin.
Below are two good examples:
Tofu soup in the style of Wen Si: Tofu is arguably one of the most repre-
sentative and unique food types known to the ethnic Han. It is commonly
believed that Liu An 劉安 (179–122 BCE), Prince of Huainan 淮南王,12 in-
vented tofu; however, this alleged fact is not mentioned in the Writings of
the Masters of Huainan 淮南子 or any other contemporaneous text (in-
cluding the later comprehensive agricultural encyclopedia Essential Skills
for the Daily Life of the People 齊民要術), an absence that casts doubt on
the claim. The earliest reference to tofu is found in the late Five Dynasties
period, when Tao Gu 陶穀 (903–970) mentioned it in his Records of the
Unworldly and the Strange 清異錄 (1.31). Since then, it has become a fre-
quent topic in literature—culinary oriented or otherwise—attesting to
the immediate popularity of tofu among the Han consumers. As such, the
more likely scenario is that tofu was invented during the Five Dynasties
period and has been a stable diet of the Han since the Song dynasty.
As for the name Wen Si 文思, it belongs to a monk of the Temple of
Serene Heaven 天寧寺, who was active during the time of Qianlong.
12 Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200), for example, in his footnote to the poem entitled “A Tribute
to Liu Xiu in Thirteen Poems on Vegetarianism: Tofu” 次劉秀野蔬食十三詩韻：豆腐,
writes: “it is common knowledge that the Prince of Huinan invented the technique used
to create tofu” (275).
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 107
Although virtually nothing is known about this monk, separate entries in
Pleasure Boat record that Wen Si was a skillful poet and a good judge of
character; more importantly, he also made a delicious tofu soup (4.86).
The late Qing scholar Yu Yue 俞樾 (1821–1907) also mentions that later
replicates of Wen Si’s recipes became known as “tofu soup in the style of
Wen Si” (21.441). In other words, this dish is distinctly Han both in terms
of its ingredients and in its association with the eponymous Chinese
Buddhist monk.
Cocoon Bouillon: The name of this dish first appears in Ancient Matters
from the Wulin Garden 武林舊事, which describes it as one of the delica-
cies served by Zhang Jun 張俊 (1086–1154) to Song Emperor Gaozong
宋高宗 (1107–1187) in the twenty-first year of the Shaoxing 紹興 era (1131–
1162) (Zhou 9.202). Because the text does not elaborate on the nature of
this dish, many researchers have taken the word “cocoon” 繭兒 literally
and conceived of this dish as a bouillon made with the cocoons of silk-
worm or other insects. What they have overlooked is that another Song
dynasty text, entitled the Records of a Dream 夢粱錄, mentions a type of
food with an almost identical name, “fish cocoon” 魚繭兒. The fact that
Wulin and Dream are written by authors with comparable backgrounds,
and that both deal with the same subject matter, means that they are
likely referring to the same type of food when using the word “cocoon”. In
the case of the second dish, the name “fish cocoon” suggests that fish fea-
tures as a primary ingredient. Since Dream indicates that “cocoon bouil-
lon” is a food commonly served with soup noodle, it is likely that the
“cocoon” in question is either an early version of the modern-day fish ball
魚丸, which is also known as fish globe 魚圓 in Fujianese cuisine and fish
egg 魚蛋 in Cantonese cuisine; or it is a type of fish roe.13
From the above examination of the content of this sample menu recorded in
Pleasure Boat, we are able to deduce a number of important factors which indi-
cate the menu’s fusion nature, ranging from the singularity of the menu to the
difference in ingredients and cooking methods between servings. Armed with
13 The name “fish cocoon” is also mentioned by the Tang poets Han Yu (768–824) and Meng
Jiao 孟郊 (751–814) in their joint poem “Joint Verse of the Southside” 城南聯句, which
states: “At the end of the book and the fish cocoon / the music of the qin and zheng
sounds” 書饒罄魚繭，紀盛播琴箏. According to Qian Zhonglian 錢仲聯, the “fish co-
coon” in this poem does not refer to food but to a type of paper popular among literati of
the Tang dynasty. Since organic material is not used in making Chinese paper, it is unclear
in what sense the food and the paper are related, if at all (Han 618).
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access108 Yue
this knowledge, let us now return to the argument raised by Zhao. Aside from
his attempts to disassociate this menu from the Comprehensive Manchu–Han
Banquet, Zhao also advocates interpreting this particular menu in the follow-
ing context. Firstly, in order to substantiate his reading of the “Manchu–Han
Banquet” in the Pleasure Boat menu as “Manchu and Han Banquet”, Zhao con-
tends that each serving, written as fen 分 in the original Chinese text, refers to
a complete meal, and that the recipe’s creator did not plan to offer all of these
servings at any single banquet but instead intended to choose one of the five to
prepare and serve. As such, that Pleasure Boat only lists one menu following its
use of the term “Manchu–Han Banquet” does not really pose a problem at all;
for according to Zhao, these are actually five menus instead of one. Secondly,
when considered alongside Tripod, another important contemporaneous work
that offers insights into the state of gastronomy at that time, Zhao points to
the fact that Tripod does not mention anything resembling a fusion Manchu–
Han Banquet but instead contains three sample menus under the respective
headings “Han Banquet One”, “Han Banquet Two”, and “Manchu Banquet”. He
contends that if Yuan Mei’s earlier criticism, which predates Tripod, is indeed
levied at a fusion banquet, then given its apparent popularity among the early
Qing elites, the sample menu in Tripod should logically feature this fusion
menu instead of listing the Han and Manchu banquets under separate entries.
For more than a decade, the above view advanced by Zhao has considerably
influenced research on Chinese gastronomy, especially research produced in
mainland China and Taiwan.14 His dismissal of the menu in Pleasure Boat is
partly informed by his reading of Tripod; yet there are several facts in Tripod
overlooked by Zhao in his discussion which may affect his hypothesis. To
begin, regarding his interpretation of fen as “meal” (whereas “serving” is pre-
ferred in the present study), one should bear in mind that the third and fourth
servings of the Pleasure Boat menu, which contain most of the menu items,
feature no more than fourteen dishes, and that in the Tripod menus there are
sixty-eight dishes listed in the first Han Banquet, one hundred and twenty-
six dishes in the second Han Banquet, and twenty-five dishes in the Manchu
Banquet. Assuming that the menus in Tripod offer an accurate reflection of the
grandiosity of a contemporaneous grand banquet—one that the social elites
of the time customarily enjoyed—then the Pleasure Boat menu simply does
not possess the same sense of lavishness to elicit Yuan Mei’s condemnation,
14 This is observable in recent studies by Zhao Xudong 趙旭東, Wang Shasha 王莎莎, Feng
Jiaxong 馮家松, and Ye Quanhong 葉泉宏, which all touch upon the Comprehensive
Manchu–Han Banquet but focus specifically on the late Qing period, without a single
mention of Sui Garden, Pleasure Boat, and other early Qing texts.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 109
unless it is taken as part of a whole. Although it is true that neither text offers
any information pertaining to the size and volume of each dish (in theory, the
dishes on the Pleasure Boat menu could be much larger and used to serve more
people), the discrepancy in number is still too great for Zhao’s argument to
overcome. As for the possibility that the dishes on the Tripod menu are listed
for comprehensiveness and are not supposed to be served all at once (meaning
a host is free to choose what to include or exclude), doubts also arise. Why does
Tripod list two separate menus for the Han banquet rather than simply incor-
porate everything into a single menu? Finally, there is also the fact that the fifth
serving on the Pleasure Boat menu almost entirely comprises side dishes and
confectionaries, which can hardly be considered a complete meal (let alone
a banquet) according to Chinese customs. These factors allow us to establish
that the five servings on the Pleasure Boat menu are intended to constitute one
complete banquet, and the nature of this banquet is unmistakably an amalga-
mation of traditional Han and Manchu cuisines.
This project began with one simple question in mind: When did fusion
cuisine, one which combines ethnic Han and Manchus culinary traditions
to form what is known today as the Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet,
first began? By focusing on the sample menu found in Pleasure Boat, which
previous researchers have overlooked, we are able to answer this question by
confirming the existence of this tradition, albeit in an early form, during the
Qianlong era. In the process, we have also successfully refuted the popular late-
Qing hypothesis which is considered by some to be orthodox. Moreover, in our
attempt to learn more about the ethnic politics of food during the early Qing
dynasty, our research has also made important new discoveries about the his-
tory and characteristics of ethnic cuisine in China, along with the conditions
surrounding their consumptions. In the end, much has been learned about
Chinese gastronomy as a unique cultural heritage and the nature of fusion din-
ing in a historical setting.
Bibliography
Anon, Libo xianzhi ziliao gao 荔波縣志資料稿, Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2006.
Cao, Xueqin 曹雪芹, The Story of the Stone, David Hawkes (trans.), Hammersmith:
Penguin, 1977.
Chang, Jianhua 常建華, “Sheng Qing Yangzhou de chengshi shenghuo: yi Yangzhou
huafang lu wei zhongxin 盛清揚州的城市生活：以揚州畫舫錄為中心”, in Sheng
Qing shehui yu Yangzhou yanjiu 盛清社會與揚州研究 Feng Mingzhu 馮明珠 (ed.),
227–58, Taipei: Yuanliu chubanshe, 2011.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free access110 Yue
Chang, Kwang-chih (ed.), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical
Perspectives, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
Chen, Zhihan 陳植漢, Man-Han quanxi daquan 滿漢全席大全, Hong Kong: Xiandai
guanli yinshi zhuanye xiehui, 2005.
Feng, Jiaxong 馮家松, “Lun Man Han chuanxi de xingcheng yu fazhan 論滿漢全席的
形成與發展”, in Zhongguo yinshi yanjiu lunwen zhuanji 2 中國飲食研究論文專集二,
Shen Xongmou 沈松茂 (ed.), 5–11, Taipei: Zhongguo canyin xuehui, 1996.
Han, Yu 韓愈, Han Changli shi xinian jishi 韓昌黎詩系年集釋, Qian Zhonglian 錢仲聯
(ed.), Shanghai, Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1998.
Ji, Yun 紀昀, Yuewei caotang biji 閱微草堂筆記, Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe,
1980.
Jin, Yufu 金毓黻, Liaohai congshu 遼海叢書, Shenyang: Liaoshen shushe, 1992.
Kangxi 康熙 [Aisin Gioro Xuanye 愛新覺羅玄燁], Tingyun geyan 庭訓格言, Zha
Hongde 查洪德 (ed.), Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1994.
Li, Dou 李斗, Yangzhou huafang lu 揚州畫舫錄, Wang Beiping 汪北平 and Xu Yugong
涂雨公 (eds.), Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960.
Liao, Yang 廖楊, “Lun Qing dai Menggu diqu de minzu lifa 論清代蒙古地區的民族立
法”, in Shehui kexue jikan 社會科學輯刊, 3 (1998): 108–112.
Lin, Yongkuang 林永匡, and Wang Xi 王熹, Qing dai yinshi wenhua yanjiu: meishi, mei-
wei, meiqi 清代飲食文化研究：美食․美味․美器, Harbin: Heilong jiang jiaoyu chu-
banshe, 1990.
Mao, Yuanyi 茅元儀, Wubei zhi 武備志, Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 2001.
Sun, Jizong 孫繼宗, et al., Ming Yingzong shilu 明英宗實錄, Zhongyang yanjiuyuan
lishi yuyan yanjiusuo 中央硏究院歷史語言硏究所 (ed.), Taipei: Zhongyang yan-
jiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1966–67.
Tang, Ying 唐英, Tang Ying chuanji 唐英全集, Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2008.
Tao, Gu 陶穀, Qingyi lu 淸異錄, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991.
Tao, Wentai 陶文台, Zhongguo pengren shilue 中國烹飪史略, Nanjing: Jiangsu kexue
jishu chubanshe, 1983.
Xiaoheng, Xiangshi Zhuren 小橫香室主人, Qingzhao yeshi daguan 清朝野史大觀,
Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1932.
Wu 吳氏, Wu shi zhongkui lu 吳氏中饋錄, Beijing: Zhongguo shangye chubanshe, 1987.
Wu, Zhengge 吳正格, Zhongguo yankui: Man-Han quanxi yanjiu yu yingyong 中國宴
魁：滿漢全席研究與應用, Shandong: Shandong huabao chubanshe, 2015.
Xi, Qing 西淸, Heilongjiang waiji 黑龍江外記, Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1969.
Xu, Ke 徐珂, Qingbai leichao 清稗類鈔, Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1984.
Yao, Tinglin 姚廷遴, Linian ji 歷年記, Shanghai shi wenwu baoguan weiyuanhui 上
海市文物保管委員會 (ed.), Shanghai: Shanghai shi wenwu baoguan weiyuanhui,
1962.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111
Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessThe Comprehensive Manchu–Han Banquet 111
Ye, Quanhong 葉泉宏, “Qianlong qiansou yan yu Qing Xian zongfan guanxi: 1785
nian 乾隆千叟宴與清鮮宗藩關係：1785年”, in Hanguo xuebao 韓國學報 17 (2009):
283–297.
Yu, Yue 俞樾, Chaxiang shi congchao 茶香室叢鈔, in Jing Fan 貞凡 et al. (eds.), Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1995.
Yuan, Mei 袁枚, Suiyuan shidan 隨園食單, Beijing: Zhongguo xiju chubanshe, 2000.
Zhao, Rongguang 趙榮光, Man-Han chuanxi yuanliu kaoshu 滿漢全席源流考述,
Beijing: Kunlun chubanshe, 2003.
Zhao, Xudong 趙旭東, and Wang Shasha 王莎莎, “Min yishi weitian: Zhongguo shipin
anchuan guannian de weiguan zhengzhi xue 民以食為天：中國食品安全觀念的微
觀政治學”, in Zhongguo yinshi wenhua 中國飲食文化 9 (2013): 115–36.
Zhao, Xudong 趙旭東, and Wang Shasha 王莎莎, “Quanli jingying jiekou de yinshi bia-
oda: jiyu Qing dai Man Han chuanxi faming de weiguan zhengzhi fenxi 權力精英結
構的飲食表達：基於清代「滿漢全席」發明的微觀政治學分析”, in Minsu yanjiu
民俗研究 1 (2011): 256–266.
Zhonghua, Chuyi Xueyuan 中華廚藝學院, Laogang ziwei 老港滋味, Hong Kong:
Zhonghua chuyi xueyuan, 2015.
Zhou, Mi 周密, Wulin jiushi 武林舊事, Suzhou: Jiangsu Guangling guji keyin she, 1983.
Zhu, Xi 朱熹, Zhu Xi shici biannian jianzhu 朱熹詩詞編年箋注, in Guo Qi 郭齊 (ed.),
Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2000.
Ming Qing Yanjiu 22 (2018) 93–111 Downloaded from Brill.com04/10/2021 03:39:47PM
via free accessYou can also read
