The Chinese have not hitherto had very fair play in Europe. The firstmissionaries，from the natural propensity of all discoverers tomagnify the importance of their discovery，gave a most exaggerated account of theirmerits and attainments; and then came a set of philosophers，who，from their natural love of paradox， and laudable zeal to depreciate that part of their species with which they were best acquainted，eagerly took up and improved upon the legends of the holy fathers，till they had notonly exalted those remote Asiatics above all European competition，but had transformed them into a sort of biped Houyhnms—the creatures of pure reason and enlightened beneficence. This extravagance， of course，provoked an opposite extravagance; and... others，not contented with denying the virtues and sciences of the Chinese，called equally in question their numbers，their antiquity， and theirmanual dexterity; and represented them as among themost contemptible and debased of the barbarians，to whom all but Europe seemed to have been allotted in perpetuity. Moremoderate and rational opinions at length suc-ceeded; and，when our embassy entered the country in 1793，the intelligentmen who composed it were as little inclined，we believe，to extol the Chinese，from childish admiration，or out of wittymalice，as to detract from their realmerits，because they appeared under an outl andish aspect，or had been overpraised by some of their predecessors.1This remark wasmade by the Edinburgh Review in 1810 when it reviewed Ta Tsing Leu Lee，or The Penal Code of China translated by George Thomas Staunton. Here the reviewer pointed out concisely both the changes and the reasons for such changes in European views on China before the Macartney embassy(1792－1794)．Thiswork concentrates on an examination of the‘more moderate and rational’views of British writers on China during the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies from the 1790s to the early 1820s.From the quotation，it can be seen that the reviewer strongly derided the Jesuits and philosophes for their‘childish admiration’ of China. In their reassessment of China during the time of the two embassies，many British writers indeed rejected the favourable opinions of the Jesuits and the Enlightenment writers，although the sources provided by the missionaries were still of ten quoted by them. For instance，the tendency of John Barrow's Travels in China was to‘correct the extravagant exaggerations contained in the writings of the missionaries(Jesuits)， and adopted by some of the greatest philosophers of the Continent’．2 In his History of British India，James Mill condemned the Jesuits for being eager to propagate‘themost hyperbolical ideas’ of the arts，sciences and institutions of China， and Voltaire formaking the Chinese an object of ‘the loudest and most unqualified praise’．3 In the opinion of the Quarterly Review，the Jesuits had told the readers in Europe only what they read in Chinese books，but concealed the facts daily appearing before them; they had revealed to Europe the theory of Chinese governmentbutnot its practice， and the ideas of morality，not the conduct of the people. Yet China was a country where theory and practice weremore at variance than anywhere else.4This period was an important stage in the British cultural investigation of China. Not only were more direct observations made by British travellers in the interior parts of China，but the study of the Chinese language and the translation of Chinese works were undertaken by some individuals. Before the Macartney embassy，as the Quarterly Review asserted，Britain cared little about China so long as‘Bohea and Souchong’，two sorts of tea，were sufficiently supplied from that country.5 But in 1822 the Monthly Review could state that during the last thirty years，‘an extraordinary degree of light has been thrown on the history，the government， and themanners of China’．6 William Jones once remarked that itwas to France that Britain was indebted for‘almost every effort that has been made to elucidate the language and literature of China’，whereas by 1814 the Quarterly Review could boast thatwithin the past twenty years Britain had paid of f with interest the literary debt of two centuries.7 At the same time the Quarterly Review claimed that in Engl and‘we have reason to believe the Chinese language and literature have already mademuch greater progress than on the continent’．8 When Macartney left Engl and for China nobody in Britain understood Chinese. But afterwards a number of individuals took up the learning of the language and some of them，such as Robert Morrison，Joshua Marshman，George T. Staunton，F. K. Davis and Stephen Weston，gradually mastered it. A few works on the Chinese languagewere published; themost prominent of them were perhaps Morrison's ADictionary of the Chinese Language，one volume of which came out in 1815， and Marshman's Clavis Sinica (1814)．The study of a language‘was not to be undertaken simply from the etymological point of view，but in the context of what was known about the stages of human development’．9 During this period somewriters indeed considered the language and the stage of civilization of a nation as closely related. For instance，George T. Staunton believed that the greatmultitude of characters of the Chinese languagewas a sign of the high achievement of Chinese civilization whereas John Barrow assumed that the immutability of the language of China had had the effect of retarding the progress of the society. At the same time several Chinese workswere translated in-to English，such as The Penal Code of China(by G. T. Staunton in 1810) and‘An Heir in his Old Age’: A Chinese Drama(by F. K. Davis，1817)．Despite such progress in the study of Chinese language and literature，British sinology of this period could be said to be still at a very early stage. This was well recognized by the Monthly Review when it remarked in 1822 that‘the attempt to naturalize the literature of China is only in its first beginnings; and we look forwards with sanguine hopes to the discovery and display of treasures，that have been for ages hidden from Europe by the thick veil of a language’which it was once ignorantly supposed by Europeans that they could never underst and.10 In 1820 the Indo-Chinese Gleaner even lamented that in Britain neither national colleges nor private institutions had any student of the Chinese language.11This period of the two embassies was also a time when some British writers were trying to trace the origin of the Chinese people who were once considered by John Webb to be the descendants of Noah.12 The Jesuits thought that the Chinese came from the same stock as the Hebrews and Arabswhile M. Pauw，a continental Orientalist，stated that the Chinese were‘originally Tartars descending in wild clans from the steeps of Imaus’．13 In the view of William Jones，Hindus， Chinese and Japanese were from the same stem which might be traced to Iran，a common centre，probably from where all these three nations as well as the Arabs and the Tartars‘diverged in various directions about four thous and years ago’．14 John Barrow，however，took the view that the Chinese were of a Tartar breed，distinct both from the Hindus and the Egyptians.15 Meanwhile many British writers were also endeavouring to assess the state of Chinese civilization. For instance，John Barrow declared that one of the purposes of his Travels in China was to put China into a proper rank of civilization. The result of James Mill's philosophical inquiry of China was that it was little advanced beyond the infancy of an agricultural society.16 A more common view among British writers was that Chinese civilization was more advanced than those of other Asian nations，but less so than that of Europe. Thiswaswell brought out by the Quarterly Review in 1821 when it wrote that the Chinese were‘a shrewd，an industrious， and an ingenious people，far superior to all other oriental nations，whether Pagan or Ma home tan，however low we may be pleased to place them on our scale of civilization’．17During this period there existed a general incentive for publishing works on China. Itarose from awidespread curiosity concerning China among the British public， and an increase in the contact，especially commercial，between the two countries. Encouraged by the Macartney embassy，morewriters became interested in investigating the culture of this distant oriental society. As the advertisement of William Winter botham's View of China pointed out，‘the Embassy has given rise to a laudable spirit of inquirywith respect to the Chinese empire，which we have no doubtwill ultimately prove advantageous to British commerce’．18 The advertisement went on to say that the volume had been compiled in order to aid the inquirers in their pursuit and provide the public with the means of obtaining a general knowledge of China. To some writers，such as William Jones and Frederic Shoberl，to write on China was only a part of their researches. For instance，Frederic Shoberl edited The World in Miniature，only two volumes of which were on China. In his His-tory of British India，James Millmade comments on China merely to compare itwith India in support of his arguments on the latter. It should bementioned that to write about China was a way for some writers to develop or prove their ideas，philosophical，political，social and so on.Furthermore，thiswas a period in which Britain and China started to have diplomatic contacts，but the relations between the two countries generally deteriorated. Such a change in relationship played an integral part in British views on China. As early as1787 Colonel Charles Cathcartwas sent as Ambassador to China，but he failed to arrive due to his death in the course of his voyage. George Macartney and William Pitt Amherstwent to China as Ambassadors respectively in the years 1792 to 1794 and 1816 to 1817; the former had an audiencewith the Emperor of Chinawhile the latterwas rejected and immediately left Beijing. They both failed to achieve the objectives of establishing a diplomatic relation with China and improving trading conditions. The contacts between the two countries were still basically confined to trade at Guangzhou( Canton) where the East India Company had its factory and its representative，the Select Committee，who could be said to be‘unpaid diplomats’ of the British government.19 The Company'smonopoly of the China trade was renewed in 1793. The trade at Canton was of great importance to Britain in general and to the East India Company in particular; tea from China provided about ten percent of the total revenue of Engl and and the whole pr of it of the Company itself.20 However，the balance of tradewas still in favour of China.21 Meanwhile British merchants，whether private traders or those of the Company，could trade only with the Hong merchants. There were constant complaints among British merchants against the restricted condition of trade at Guangzhou， and quarrels between the Chinese and the British took place now and then. In addition，except for the two embassies，British visitors，whether missionaries or other individual travellers，were prevented from penetrating into the interior of the country. The embassies themselves travelled in the country only along certain guided roads. These restrictions on travel and trade，together with diplomatic failure，had a tendency to fuel British observers' criticism of China. In 1805 when it reviewed Barrow's Travels in China，the Eclectic Review pointed out that from the time the Chinese refused to enter a commercial treaty with the British，the author‘could see scarcely anything wise，or great，or good，in the whole empire’ of China.22There have been inmodern times a number of publications which consider Western views in general，or British views in particular，on China，such as Adolf Reichwein's China and Europe: Intellectu-al and Artistic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century(translated into English in 1925)，G. F. Hudson's Europe and China: ASurvey of their Relations from the Earliest Times to 1800(1931)，V.G. Kiernan's The Lords of Human Kind: European Attitudes towards the Outside World in the Imperial Age(1969) and Nigel Cameron's Barbarians and Mandarins: Thirteen Centuries of Western Travellersin China(1970)．Another historian，Raymond Dawson，has investigated in his Chinese Chameleon(1967) the changing Western perceptions of Chinese civilization from the time of Marco Polo to the present century through a selective examination of those writers who were‘the most obviously influential’．23 Dawson paid special attention to the attitudes towards China of the English writers such as Defoe，Oliver Goldsmith，John Stuart Mill and Arnold Toynbee. In his book he seeks to show how much the changing conceptions have corresponded with Chinese realities and how much they derived from the needs of European interpreters of China.24 Dawson writes that the Western response to Chinais conditioned partly by the objective situation there and partly by the conscious interests and subconscious needs of our own personalities. This has been true of all Europeanswho have ever formed any conception of China and the Chinese. Consequently the history of relations between Europe and China has depended verymuch on the nature of European conceptions of the Middle Kingdomand how these conceptions have changed in response not only to changes in China itself but also to developments in European history.25He then proceeds to argue that there have been many misconceptions of China among European writers， and suggests that‘we have a long way to go before our general underst anding of Chinese civilization corresponds adequately with the Middle Kingdom's past achievements and future importance’．26 In a sense his book intends to improve contemporary British underst anding of China.In 1982 Pr of essor P. J. Marshall and Pr of essor Glyndwr Williams published The Great Map of Mankind: British Perceptions of the World in the Age of Enlightenment in which they examine British images and perceptions of Asia，North America， West Africa and the Pacific from the late seventeenth century to about1800. In the book considerable space is given to the British assessment of China during this period， and there is a discussion on the reasons for the decline in the British estimate of China. They have investigated British perceptions in the context of the development of the British empire， and suggested that British policies towards non-Eu-ropean peoples were‘inevitably influenced’by their preconceptions and supposed knowledge.27 Henry A. Myers edited the book Western Views of China and the Far East(1982－1984)，which consists of two volumes，covering a period from ancient times to the late twentieth century. One chapter，written by Chong-kun Yoon，investigates European views on China during the period of the Enlightenment. Yoon examines concisely the discovery of Confucianism by the Jesuits，philosophers such as Leibnitz and Voltaire， and the Physiocrats like Quesnay， and their favourable views on Chinese civilization. The author also makes a short analysis on the decline of sinophilism in Europe，especially in Engl and.28 But in the book little is said about British views during the time of the Macartney and Amherst embassies. Colin Mackerras haswritten two books on Western views on China. The first one is Western Images of China，published in 1987 and a revised edition in 1999. In this work， Mackerras only touched British views on China during the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies，through a brief survey of the accounts of China made by Macartney，George L. Staunton and John Barrow. The second book is Sinophiles and Sinophobes: Western Views of China (An anthology selected and edited by Colin Mackerras)，published in 2000. On British views on China of this period， Mackerras only selected the accounts of China made by Macartney and John Barrow. But in the introduction， Mackerras makes a general analysis of Western views of China，arguing that Western views of China have undergone eightages，from positive to negative， and vice versa. In his view，the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies is within the third and fourth ages. He writes that‘In the second half of the eighteenth century，the trend moved away from the dominantly positive view that had characterized this third great age to a fourth，decisively more negative period，which lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century.’29In the 1940s，a Chinese scholar，Zhongshu Qian( Ch'ien Chung-shu)，published in the Quarterly Bulletin of Chinese Bibli-ography( English edition) the articles，‘ China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth Century’， and‘ China in the English Literature of the Eighteenth Century’．30 In his view，in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries，those Englishmen who had an interest in Chinese studies were of ten themselves literatiwhose writings on China formed‘part and parcel of the history of English literature’．Their interest in China was‘rather humanistic than philological or pragmatic’．31 Another historian， William W. Appleton，examined in his A Cycle of Cathay(1951) the Chinese vogue in Engl and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hemade，as well，a concise survey of English writings and views on China during this period. But in the last chapter of the book，‘The Macartney Embassy’，the author wrote little about the views on China of themembers of themission，except for some generalizations.Historians have found that Britain in general entertained favourable opinions of China during the seventeenth century. For instance，Zhongshu Qian argued that in the seventeenth century British writers generally showed‘high admiration’for China.32 Similarly，P. J. Marshall and G. Williams agree thatby the end of the seventeenth century China was overall‘held up for admiration’．A totally stable government of immense antiquity administering wise laws through an elite of philosophers and keeping a strict public peace by deference rather than by terror was a wonderful phenomenon. Peace and order enabled a huge population to develop agriculture，manufacturing and trade to very high levels. China was a vast human ant heap of industry.33The seventeenth-century British writers，whose favourable comments and observations on China have beenmost frequently quoted by historians，were perhaps Peter Mundy，John Webb， and Sir William Temple. Peter Mundy visited China with Captain John Weddell in 1637 and stayed at Guangzhou and Macao for several months. Mundy believed that Chinawas the‘ Most Ancient and Famous Kingdome’in the world.34 In his view， Chinamight be said to excel in antiquity，size，wealth，health and plenty. In terms of the arts and methods of government，no country in the world was comparable to it.35John Webb(1611－1672) was the author of An Historical Essayon the Language of the Empire of China(1669) in which he argued that Chinese was the‘Primitive Language’，a universal tongue common to the world before the Flood，which was used by Noah and his posterity and which was not affected by the‘confusion of tongues at Babel’．36 In his view，the Chinese appeared to be‘the most sweet and smooth Language， of all others throughout the whole World at this day known’．37 Hemademany other favourable comments on China. For instance，he wrote that Europe and other Asian countrieswere‘extremely indebted to this industrial Nation’from which‘as from the fountain they have drained all their chiefest Arts and Manufactures’．38 In the fields of government policy，rules formagistrates and laws for the people，no empire，kingdom or state‘ever or at this day known，can be brought to st and in competition with the Monarchy of China’．39Themostwell-known English sinophile of the seventeenth century was perhaps Sir William Temple(1628－1699) who‘fervently praised Chinese thought，history， and institutions’．40 In his Of He-roic Virtue，Temple wrote that China was‘the greatest，richest， and most populous kingdom now known in the world; and will perhaps be found to owe its riches，force，civility， and felicity，to the admirable constitution of its government，more than any other country’.41 China，to him，seemed to‘be framed and policed with the utmost force and reach of human wisdom，reason， and contrivance; and in practice to excel the very speculations of othermen， and all those imaginary schemes of the European wits，the institutions of xenophon，the republic of Plato，the Utopia's，or Oceana's of our modern writers’．42 William Temple's tonewas indeed panegyric. It will be adequate here to encapsulate his enchantmentwith China in his own words:‘Itwere endless to enumerate all the excellent orders of this state，which seem contrived by a reach of sense and wisdom beyond what we meet with in any other government of the world; but by some few，the restmay be judged.’43 Eighteenth-century British views on China seem to be more di-versified and complex than those of the seventeenth century. On the one h and，there was a general decline in British estimation of China， and sinophilism began to wane earlier than on European continent; but on the other，there was a vogue among the British public for chinoiserie which reached its climax in themiddle of the century.44 Historians have had among themselves slightly different opinions of British views on China in the eighteenth century. Zhongshu Qian wrote that the eighteenth-century English attitude towards China，as revealed in literature，was‘the reverse of that as revealed in life’， and sinophilism seemed to‘have waned in English literature as itwaxed in English life’． English literature of the eighteenth century was‘full of unfavourable criticisms of Chinese culture in general and the prevailing fashion of chinoiserie in particular’．The century witnessed a gradual decline in the enthusiasm for Chinese culture among the literati.45 In sum，eighteenthcentury English writers generally took the view that Chinese civilization was stationary; that Chinese geniuswas inferior to that of the Europeans in science; that the people，after Lord Anson's voyage to Guangzhou(1742－1743)，were‘wily and crafty’; and that the antiquity of China was a‘boastful and pretentious’fiction.46 At the same time Zhongshu Qian suggested that if‘the English of the eighteenth century appreciate the Chinese less than their seventeenth century predecessors， and know about the Chinese less than their French contemporaries，they underst and them more’．47In his A Cycle of Cathay， William W. Appleton argued that by 1750 China was‘no longer generally esteemed among English intellectuals either for its antiquity or learning’．48 The‘ Chinese madness’among the public in Engl and，which reached its peak in the 1750s，began to decline gradually in the late decades of the century. At the end of his book，Appleton summarized thatIn the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Jesuits and pro-Chinese Europeans had constructed a detailed argument for the superiority of Chinese government and morality. Others had argued for their preeminence in the sciences. But little by little the legend had crumbled. During the latter part of the eighteenth century it had become virtually impossible to sift the fact from the rubble of themyth. The Utopia of the philosopher-kings had fallen in ruins.49V. G. Kiernan is of the opinion thatamong Englishmen‘practical dealings with China began early to breed scepticism about its model civilization’．50 This view is largely shared by Chong-kun Yoon，in whose opinion，Britain‘took the lead in Europe in doubting the excellence of Chinese culture’．He asserts that English sinophilism declined markedly after 1699 when the sinophile William Temple died.51 By the middle of the eighteenth century，‘anti-Chinese sentiments appeared to have spread widely among English intellectual circles. The tone of the anti-Chinese writings became increasingly rude and more contemptuous than ever before.’52 Considering Europe as a whole，Raymond Dawson argues that the beginning of the nineteenth century saw a striking change in European attitudes towards China; in general the enthusiasm of the previous century gave way to contempt，even though praisewas notuniversal before1800，norwas contemptafter wards. But‘the tide of China's popularity in Europe’certainly started to run out round this time.53In the view of P. J. Marshall and G. Williams，the eighteenth century witnessed a general decline in the British estimation of China. In the early eighteenth century some English writers were convinced of the antiquity of China，but in the second half，few were ‘willing to support ambitious claims for Chinese antiquity’．54 In the late seventeenth century， China was considered to be stable，but by the end of the eighteenth century many authors began to doubt even this assumption.55 At the end of the seventeenth century there were a number of English writers willing to see‘models for imitation’in China，buta century later hardly any onewas.56 Furthermore，early in the eighteenth century the Chinesewere generally esteemed as a‘polished’people，‘qualified for civility’，but in the second half of it，they were on longer accorded this status，for civility now required‘a commitment to progress through individual achievement’．57Although historians have not agreed among themselves about the timing of the start of the decline in British estimation of China，they have generally held that there was a great change in British views during the course of the eighteenth century. In reading works on China written by British writers in the eighteenth century one can not help feeling that in that century，especially in the second half，therewere actually very different views among British writers. Here a brief examination will bemade of the views of some writers from the mid-century to about 1790. This will，as it is hoped，show the existence of differences in their opinions on China. On the one h and， China was of ten censoriously commented upon. For instance，the book，AVoyage around the World in the Years MD C-CXL，II，III，IV，by George Anson，compiled by Richard Walter，asserted that in most Chinese products there was‘a stiffness and minuteness which were extremely displeasing’， and that the defects in their arts were‘entirely owing to the peculiar turn of the people，amongst whom nothing great or spirited is to be met with’．58 In literature，‘their obstinacy and absurdity are most wonderful’． Chinese theories of morality were‘solely employed in recommending ridiculous attachments to certain immaterial points，instead of discussing the proper criterion of human actions， and regulating the general conduct of mankind to one another，on reasonable and equitable principles’．59 The Gentleman's Magazine argued in the 1750s that the Chinese were inferior to the Europeans in genius; they were，in addition，‘as crafty and cruel as the Leopard’．60 In 1761 Thomas Percy wrote that the Chinese people's customs，manners and notions were the‘most artificial in the world’．61 In the view of Johann Reinhold Forster，the Chinese showed‘a very inferior and servile genius，without any spirit’．62 In 1778 Samuel Johnson even said that the Chinese belonged to the ‘ East Indian Barbarians’．63 In 1781 William Falconer wrote that in China every one as a rule should be attentive to his own interest and promote it by any means since fraud was not considered a crime.64 Conversely，some other writers made favourable comments. For instance，David Hume wrote that in China‘the sword’might be properly said to‘be always in the h ands of the people’．Thiswas a sufficient restraint upon the monarch who was obliged to put his courtiers and local mandarins under the restrictions of the law.65 Adam Smith，though critical of China in some other respects，stated that it had long been one of the‘richest，that is，one of the most fertile，best cultivated，most industrious， and most populous countries in the world’．66 In the view of William Marsden，the Chinese were perhaps‘on the same level as the“highest” European states’．67 William Chambers wrote in his A Dissertation on Ori-ental Gardening(1772) that the Chinese were‘a people whose skill in Gardening has of ten been the subject of praise; and whose manner has been setup amongstus as the st andard of imitation’．68 The author of A Cycle of Cathay found that in the late eighteenth century some English people still‘protested that the removal of a Chinese family to Engl and would seem like a transition from a civilized society to a“confusion of savages”’．69Historians have usually investigated Western views on China in a very generalway， and the examination of British views on China is only a small portion of their research upon Western perceptions of China，or upon British views of many countries over a long period. Although Zhongshu Qian's articles concentrate on a survey of English literature on China for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries，the author's investigation of British views was far from being complete. This is also true of William W. Appleton's A Cycle of Cathay. Much work remains to be done on British views on China，especially from the time of the Macartney embassy onwards.70 No extensive and specific research has been done on the views on China of the two embassies and their contemporaries despite the fact that comments or observations of some famous individuals of this period such as George Macartney， William Jones，John Barrow，Robert Morrison and James Mill，have been of ten quoted by historians. This period，it is argued，is significant in the British cultural investigation of China; it，among other things，represents a turning point in British views in the sense that after the Macartney embassy accounts weremuch more dependent on direct observation than in previous times.71 Maxine Berg takes the view that the Macartney embassy，‘occurring as it did at the end of the eighteenth century，was an eventwhich revealed changing perceptions of China and the Chinese by different British interest groups from government，trade，industry and enlightened opinion’．72 This work examines the views of both direct observers and those who had never been to China. It makes use of a wide range of relevant sources including both publications and manuscripts: books，pamphlets，articles，letters，etc. By so doing it seeks to make an overall and thorough survey of British views on China during the period of the two embassies. It also intends to investigate the writings on China of individual writers，whether famous or not，in a detailed way in order to present as a rounded view as possible.It should be pointed out that this study is not designed to examine British‘Orientalism’during the period of the two embassies. The term‘Orientalism’in Edward W. Said's Orientalism has its special definition. Here it is perhaps most appropriate to quote the author's own explanation.‘Orientalism’isa distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic，scholarly，economic，sociological，historical， and philological texts; it is an elaboration not only of a basic geographical distinction(the world is made up of two unequal halves，Orient and Occident) but also of a whole series of “interests”which，by such means as scholarly discovery，philological reconstruction，psychological analysis，l andscape and sociological description，itnotonly creates but also maintains; it is，rather than expresses，a certain will or intention to underst and，in some cases to control，manipulate，even to incorporate，what is amanifestly different(or alternative and novel) world; it is，above all，a discourse that is by nomeans in direct，corresponding relationship with political power in the raw，but rather is produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power，shaped to a degree by the exchange with power political(aswith a colonial or imperial establishment)，power intellectual(as with reigning sciences like comparative linguistics or anatomy，or any of themodern-policy sciences)，power cultural(as with orthodoxies and canons of taste，texts，values)，power moral(as with ideas about what “we”do and what“they”cannot do or underst and as“we”do)．73Said then adds that‘my real argument is that Orientalism is— and does not simply represent—a considerable dimension of modern political-intellectual culture， and as such has less to do with the Orient than it does with“our”world’．74 Whether there was or not such an‘Orientalism’in Britain during the time of the two embassies is not a main concern of this work，although Said's ideas will be referred to in a later chapter. Mostwriters here under examination could be by no means called Orientalists and some of them were nomore than ordinary travellers who told the public what they saw and heard during their travels in China. Thiswork，first

The Chinese have not hitherto had very fair play in Europe. The firstmissionaries，from the natural propensity of all discoverers tomagnify the importance of their discovery，gave a most exaggerated account of theirmerits and attainments; and then came a set of philosophers，who，from their natural love of paradox， and laudable zeal to depreciate that part of their species with which they were best acquainted，eagerly took up and improved upon the legends of the holy fathers，till they had notonly exalted those remote Asiatics above all European competition，but had transformed them into a sort of biped Houyhnms—the creatures of pure reason and enlightened beneficence. This extravagance， of course，provoked an opposite extravagance; and... others，not contented with denying the virtues and sciences of the Chinese，called equally in question their numbers，their antiquity， and theirmanual dexterity; and represented them as among themost contemptible and debased of the barbarians，to whom all but Europe seemed to have been allotted in perpetuity. Moremoderate and rational opinions at length suc-ceeded; and，when our embassy entered the country in 1793，the intelligentmen who composed it were as little inclined，we believe，to extol the Chinese，from childish admiration，or out of wittymalice，as to detract from their realmerits，because they appeared under an outl andish aspect，or had been overpraised by some of their predecessors.1This remark wasmade by the Edinburgh Review in 1810 when it reviewed Ta Tsing Leu Lee，or The Penal Code of China translated by George Thomas Staunton. Here the reviewer pointed out concisely both the changes and the reasons for such changes in European views on China before the Macartney embassy(1792－1794)． Thiswork concentrates on an examination of the‘more moderate and rational’views of British writers on China during the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies from the 1790s to the early 1820s. From the quotation，it can be seen that the reviewer strongly derided the Jesuits and philosophes for their‘childish admiration’ of China. In their reassessment of China during the time of the two embassies，many British writers indeed rejected the favourable opinions of the Jesuits and the Enlightenment writers，although the sources provided by the missionaries were still of ten quoted by them. For instance，the tendency of John Barrow's Travels in China was to‘correct the extravagant exaggerations contained in the writings of the missionaries(Jesuits)， and adopted by some of the greatest philosophers of the Continent’．2 In his History of British India，James Mill condemned the Jesuits for being eager to propagate‘themost hyperbolical ideas’ of the arts，sciences and institutions of China， and Voltaire formaking the Chinese an object of ‘the loudest and most unqualified praise’．3 In the opinion of the Quarterly Review，the Jesuits had told the readers in Europe only what they read in Chinese books，but concealed the facts daily appearing before them; they had revealed to Europe the theory of Chinese governmentbutnot its practice， and the ideas of morality，not the conduct of the people. Yet China was a country where theory and practice weremore at variance than anywhere else.4This period was an important stage in the British cultural investigation of China. Not only were more direct observations made by British travellers in the interior parts of China，but the study of the Chinese language and the translation of Chinese works were undertaken by some individuals. Before the Macartney embassy，as the Quarterly Review asserted，Britain cared little about China so long as‘Bohea and Souchong’，two sorts of tea，were sufficiently supplied from that country.5 But in 1822 the Monthly Review could state that during the last thirty years，‘an extraordinary degree of light has been thrown on the history，the government， and themanners of China’．6 William Jones once remarked that itwas to France that Britain was indebted for‘almost every effort that has been made to elucidate the language and literature of China’，whereas by 1814 the Quarterly Review could boast thatwithin the past twenty years Britain had paid of f with interest the literary debt of two centuries.7 At the same time the Quarterly Review claimed that in Engl and‘we have reason to believe the Chinese language and literature have already mademuch greater progress than on the continent’．8 When Macartney left Engl and for China nobody in Britain understood Chinese. But afterwards a number of individuals took up the learning of the language and some of them，such as Robert Morrison，Joshua Marshman，George T. Staunton，F. K. Davis and Stephen Weston，gradually mastered it. A few works on the Chinese languagewere published; themost prominent of them were perhaps Morrison's ADictionary of the Chinese Language，one volume of which came out in 1815， and Marshman's Clavis Sinica (1814)． The study of a language‘was not to be undertaken simply from the etymological point of view，but in the context of what was known about the stages of human development’．9 During this period somewriters indeed considered the language and the stage of civilization of a nation as closely related. For instance，George T. Staunton believed that the greatmultitude of characters of the Chinese languagewas a sign of the high achievement of Chinese civilization whereas John Barrow assumed that the immutability of the language of China had had the effect of retarding the progress of the society. At the same time several Chinese workswere translated in-to English，such as The Penal Code of China(by G. T. Staunton in 1810) and‘An Heir in his Old Age’: A Chinese Drama(by F. K. Davis，1817)． Despite such progress in the study of Chinese language and literature，British sinology of this period could be said to be still at a very early stage. This was well recognized by the Monthly Review when it remarked in 1822 that‘the attempt to naturalize the literature of China is only in its first beginnings; and we look forwards with sanguine hopes to the discovery and display of treasures，that have been for ages hidden from Europe by the thick veil of a language’which it was once ignorantly supposed by Europeans that they could never underst and.10 In 1820 the Indo-Chinese Gleaner even lamented that in Britain neither national colleges nor private institutions had any student of the Chinese language.11This period of the two embassies was also a time when some British writers were trying to trace the origin of the Chinese people who were once considered by John Webb to be the descendants of Noah.12 The Jesuits thought that the Chinese came from the same stock as the Hebrews and Arabswhile M. Pauw，a continental Orientalist，stated that the Chinese were‘originally Tartars descending in wild clans from the steeps of Imaus’．13 In the view of William Jones，Hindus， Chinese and Japanese were from the same stem which might be traced to Iran，a common centre，probably from where all these three nations as well as the Arabs and the Tartars‘diverged in various directions about four thous and years ago’．14 John Barrow，however，took the view that the Chinese were of a Tartar breed，distinct both from the Hindus and the Egyptians.15 Meanwhile many British writers were also endeavouring to assess the state of Chinese civilization. For instance，John Barrow declared that one of the purposes of his Travels in China was to put China into a proper rank of civilization. The result of James Mill's philosophical inquiry of China was that it was little advanced beyond the infancy of an agricultural society.16 A more common view among British writers was that Chinese civilization was more advanced than those of other Asian nations，but less so than that of Europe. Thiswaswell brought out by the Quarterly Review in 1821 when it wrote that the Chinese were‘a shrewd，an industrious， and an ingenious people，far superior to all other oriental nations，whether Pagan or Ma home tan，however low we may be pleased to place them on our scale of civilization’．17During this period there existed a general incentive for publishing works on China. Itarose from awidespread curiosity concerning China among the British public， and an increase in the contact，especially commercial，between the two countries. Encouraged by the Macartney embassy，morewriters became interested in investigating the culture of this distant oriental society. As the advertisement of William Winter botham's View of China pointed out，‘the Embassy has given rise to a laudable spirit of inquirywith respect to the Chinese empire，which we have no doubtwill ultimately prove advantageous to British commerce’．18 The advertisement went on to say that the volume had been compiled in order to aid the inquirers in their pursuit and provide the public with the means of obtaining a general knowledge of China. To some writers，such as William Jones and Frederic Shoberl，to write on China was only a part of their researches. For instance，Frederic Shoberl edited The World in Miniature，only two volumes of which were on China. In his His-tory of British India，James Millmade comments on China merely to compare itwith India in support of his arguments on the latter. It should bementioned that to write about China was a way for some writers to develop or prove their ideas，philosophical，political，social and so on. Furthermore，thiswas a period in which Britain and China started to have diplomatic contacts，but the relations between the two countries generally deteriorated. Such a change in relationship played an integral part in British views on China. As early as1787 Colonel Charles Cathcartwas sent as Ambassador to China，but he failed to arrive due to his death in the course of his voyage. George Macartney and William Pitt Amherstwent to China as Ambassadors respectively in the years 1792 to 1794 and 1816 to 1817; the former had an audiencewith the Emperor of Chinawhile the latterwas rejected and immediately left Beijing. They both failed to achieve the objectives of establishing a diplomatic relation with China and improving trading conditions. The contacts between the two countries were still basically confined to trade at Guangzhou( Canton) where the East India Company had its factory and its representative，the Select Committee，who could be said to be‘unpaid diplomats’ of the British government.19 The Company'smonopoly of the China trade was renewed in 1793. The trade at Canton was of great importance to Britain in general and to the East India Company in particular; tea from China provided about ten percent of the total revenue of Engl and and the whole pr of it of the Company itself.20 However，the balance of tradewas still in favour of China.21 Meanwhile British merchants，whether private traders or those of the Company，could trade only with the Hong merchants. There were constant complaints among British merchants against the restricted condition of trade at Guangzhou， and quarrels between the Chinese and the British took place now and then. In addition，except for the two embassies，British visitors，whether missionaries or other individual travellers，were prevented from penetrating into the interior of the country. The embassies themselves travelled in the country only along certain guided roads. These restrictions on travel and trade，together with diplomatic failure，had a tendency to fuel British observers' criticism of China. In 1805 when it reviewed Barrow's Travels in China，the Eclectic Review pointed out that from the time the Chinese refused to enter a commercial treaty with the British，the author‘could see scarcely anything wise，or great，or good，in the whole empire’ of China.22There have been inmodern times a number of publications which consider Western views in general，or British views in particular，on China，such as Adolf Reichwein's China and Europe: Intellectu-al and Artistic Contacts in the Eighteenth Century(translated into English in 1925)，G. F. Hudson's Europe and China : ASurvey of their Relations from the Earliest Times to 1800(1931)，V.G. Kiernan's The Lords of Human Kind: European Attitudes towards the Outside World in the Imperial Age(1969) and Nigel Cameron's Barbarians and Mandarins: Thirteen Centuries of Western Travellersin China(1970)． Another historian，Raymond Dawson，has investigated in his Chinese Chameleon(1967) the changing Western perceptions of Chinese civilization from the time of Marco Polo to the present century through a selective examination of those writers who were‘the most obviously influential’．23 Dawson paid special attention to the attitudes towards China of the English writers such as Defoe， Oliver Goldsmith，John Stuart Mill and Arnold Toynbee. In his book he seeks to show how much the changing conceptions have corresponded with Chinese realities and how much they derived from the needs of European interpreters of China.24 Dawson writes that the Western response to Chinais conditioned partly by the objective situation there and partly by the conscious interests and subconscious needs of our own personalities. This has been true of all Europeanswho have ever formed any conception of China and the Chinese. Consequently the history of relations between Europe and China has depended verymuch on the nature of European conceptions of the Middle Kingdomand how these conceptions have changed in response not only to changes in China itself but also to developments in European history.25He then proceeds to argue that there have been many misconceptions of China among European writers， and suggests that‘we have a long way to go before our general underst anding of Chinese civilization corresponds adequately with the Middle Kingdom's past achievements and future importance’．26 In a sense his book intends to improve contemporary British underst anding of China.In 1982 Pr of essor P. J. Marshall and Pr of essor Glyndwr Williams published The Great Map of Mankind: British Perceptions of the World in the Age of Enlightenment in which they examine British images and perceptions of Asia，North America， West Africa and the Pacific from the late seventeenth century to about1800. In the book considerable space is given to the British assessment of China during this period， and there is a discussion on the reasons for the decline in the British estimate of China. They have investigated British perceptions in the context of the development of the British empire， and suggested that British policies towards non-Eu-ropean peoples were‘inevitably influenced’by their preconceptions and supposed knowledge.27 Henry A. Myers edited the book Western Views of China and the Far East(1982－1984)，which consists of two volumes，covering a period from ancient times to the late twentieth century. One chapter，written by Chong-kun Yoon，investigates European views on China during the period of the Enlightenment. Yoon examines concisely the discovery of Confucianism by the Jesuits，philosophers such as Leibnitz and Voltaire， and the Physiocrats like Quesnay， and their favourable views on Chinese civilization. The author also makes a short analysis on the decline of sinophilism in Europe，especially in Engl and.28 But in the book little is said about British views during the time of the Macartney and Amherst embassies. Colin Mackerras haswritten two books on Western views on China. The first one is Western Images of China，published in 1987 and a revised edition in 1999. In this work， Mackerras only touched British views on China during the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies，through a brief survey of the accounts of China made by Macartney，George L. Staunton and John Barrow. The second book is Sinophiles and Sinophobes: Western Views of China (An anthology selected and edited by Colin Mackerras)，published in 2000. On British views on China of this period， Mackerras only selected the accounts of China made by Macartney and John Barrow. But in the introduction， Mackerras makes a general analysis of Western views of China，arguing that Western views of China have undergone eightages，from positive to negative， and vice versa. In his view，the period of the Macartney and Amherst embassies is within the third and fourth ages. He writes that‘In the second half of the eighteenth century，the trend moved away from the dominantly positive view that had characterized this third great age to a fourth，decisively more negative period，which lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century.’29In the 1940s，a Chinese scholar，Zhongshu Qian( Ch'ien Chung-shu)，published in the Quarterly Bulletin of Chinese Bibli-ography( English edition) the articles，‘ China in the English Literature of the Seventeenth Century’， and‘ China in the English Literature of the Eighteenth Century’．30 In his view，in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries，those Englishmen who had an interest in Chinese studies were of ten themselves literatiwhose writings on China formed‘part and parcel of the history of English literature’． Their interest in China was‘rather humanistic than philological or pragmatic’．31 Another historian， William W. Appleton，examined in his A Cycle of Cathay(1951) the Chinese vogue in Engl and during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Hemade，as well，a concise survey of English writings and views on China during this period. But in the last chapter of the book，‘The Macartney Embassy’，the author wrote little about the views on China of themembers of themission，except for some generalizations. Historians have found that Britain in general entertained favourable opinions of China during the seventeenth century. For instance，Zhongshu Qian argued that in the seventeenth century British writers generally showed‘high admiration’for China.32 Similarly，P. J. Marshall and G. Williams agree thatby the end of the seventeenth century China was overall‘held up for admiration’． A totally stable government of immense antiquity administering wise laws through an elite of philosophers and keeping a strict public peace by deference rather than by terror was a wonderful phenomenon. Peace and order enabled a huge population to develop agriculture，manufacturing and trade to very high levels. China was a vast human ant heap of industry.33The seventeenth-century British writers，whose favourable comments and observations on China have beenmost frequently quoted by historians，were perhaps Peter Mundy，John Webb， and Sir William Temple. Peter Mundy visited China with Captain John Weddell in 1637 and stayed at Guangzhou and Macao for several months. Mundy believed that Chinawas the‘ Most Ancient and Famous Kingdome’in the world.34 In his view， Chinamight be said to excel in antiquity，size，wealth，health and plenty. In terms of the arts and methods of government，no country in the world was comparable to it.35John Webb(1611－1672) was the author of An Historical Essayon the Language of the Empire of China(1669) in which he argued that Chinese was the‘Primitive Language’，a universal tongue common to the world before the Flood，which was used by Noah and his posterity and which was not affected by the‘ confusion of tongues at Babel’．36 In his view，the Chinese appeared to be‘the most sweet and smooth Language， of all others throughout the whole World at this day known’．37 Hemademany other favourable comments on China. For instance，he wrote that Europe and other Asian countrieswere‘extremely indebted to this industrial Nation’from which‘as from the fountain they have drained all their chiefest Arts and Manufactures’．38 In the fields of government policy，rules formagistrates and laws for the people，no empire，kingdom or state‘ever or at this day known，can be brought to st and in competition with the Monarchy of China’．39Themostwell-known English sinophile of the seventeenth century was perhaps Sir William Temple(1628－1699) who‘fervently praised Chinese thought，history， and institutions’．40 In his Of He-roic Virtue，Temple wrote that China was‘the greatest，richest， and most populous kingdom now known in the world; and will perhaps be found to owe its riches，force，civility， and felicity，to the admirable constitution of its government，more than any other country’.41 China，to him，seemed to‘be framed and policed with the utmost force and reach of human wisdom，reason， and contrivance; and in practice to excel the very speculations of othermen， and all those imaginary schemes of the European wits，the institutions of xenophon，the republic of Plato，the Utopia's，or Oceana's of our modern writers’．42 William Temple's tonewas indeed panegyric. It will be adequate here to encapsulate his enchantmentwith China in his own words:‘Itwere endless to enumerate all the excellent orders of this state，which seem contrived by a reach of sense and wisdom beyond what we meet with in any other government of the world; but by some few，the restmay be judged.’43 Eighteenth-century British views on China seem to be more di-versified and complex than those of the seventeenth century. On the one h and，there was a general decline in British estimation of China， and sinophilism began to wane earlier than on European continent; but on the other，there was a vogue among the British public for chinoiserie which reached its climax in themiddle of the century.44 Historians have had among themselves slightly different opinions of British views on China in the eighteenth century. Zhongshu Qian wrote that the eighteenth-century English attitude towards China，as revealed in literature，was‘the reverse of that as revealed in life’， and sinophilism seemed to‘have waned in English literature as itwaxed in English life’． English literature of the eighteenth century was‘full of unfavourable criticisms of Chinese culture in general and the prevailing fashion of chinoiserie in particular’． The century witnessed a gradual decline in the enthusiasm for Chinese culture among the literati.45 In sum，eighteenthcentury English writers generally took the view that Chinese civilization was stationary; that Chinese geniuswas inferior to that of the Europeans in science; that the people，after Lord Anson's voyage to Guangzhou(1742－1743)，were‘wily and crafty’; and that the antiquity of China was a‘boastful and pretentious’fiction.46 At the same time Zhongshu Qian suggested that if‘the English of the eighteenth century appreciate the Chinese less than their seventeenth century predecessors， and know about the Chinese less than their French contemporaries，they underst and them more’．47In his A Cycle of Cathay， William W. Appleton argued that by 1750 China was‘no longer generally esteemed among English intellectuals either for its antiquity or learning’．48 The‘ Chinese madness’among the public in Engl and，which reached its peak in the 1750s，began to decline gradually in the late decades of the century. At the end of his book，Appleton summarized thatIn the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Jesuits and pro-Chinese Europeans had constructed a detailed argument for the superiority of Chinese government and morality. Others had argued for their preeminence in the sciences. But little by little the legend had crumbled. During the latter part of the eighteenth century it had become virtually impossible to sift the fact from the rubble of themyth. The Utopia of the philosopher-kings had fallen in ruins.49V. G. Kiernan is of the opinion thatamong Englishmen‘practical dealings with China began early to breed scepticism about its model civilization’．50 This view is largely shared by Chong-kun Yoon，in whose opinion，Britain‘took the lead in Europe in doubting the excellence of Chinese culture’． He asserts that English sinophilism declined markedly after 1699 when the sinophile William Temple died.51 By the middle of the eighteenth century，‘anti-Chinese sentiments appeared to have spread widely among English intellectual circles. The tone of the anti-Chinese writings became increasingly rude and more contemptuous than ever before.’52 Considering Europe as a whole，Raymond Dawson argues that the beginning of the nineteenth century saw a striking change in European attitudes towards China; in general the enthusiasm of the previous century gave way to contempt，even though praisewas notuniversal before1800，norwas contemptafter wards. But‘the tide of China's popularity in Europe’certainly started to run out round this time.53In the view of P. J. Marshall and G. Williams，the eighteenth century witnessed a general decline in the British estimation of China. In the early eighteenth century some English writers were convinced of the antiquity of China，but in the second half，few were ‘willing to support ambitious claims for Chinese antiquity’．54 In the late seventeenth century， China was considered to be stable，but by the end of the eighteenth century many authors began to doubt even this assumption.55 At the end of the seventeenth century there were a number of English writers willing to see‘models for imitation’in China，buta century later hardly any onewas.56 Furthermore，early in the eighteenth century the Chinesewere generally esteemed as a‘polished’people，‘qualified for civility’，but in the second half of it，they were on longer accorded this status，for civility now required‘a commitment to progress through individual achievement’．57Although historians have not agreed among themselves about the timing of the start of the decline in British estimation of China，they have generally held that there was a great change in British views during the course of the eighteenth century. In reading works on China written by British writers in the eighteenth century one can not help feeling that in that century，especially in the second half，therewere actually very different views among British writers. Here a brief examination will bemade of the views of some writers from the mid-century to about 1790. This will，as it is hoped，show the existence of differences in their opinions on China. On the one h and， China was of ten censoriously commented upon. For instance，the book，AVoyage around the World in the Years MD C-CXL，II，III，IV，by George Anson，compiled by Richard Walter，asserted that in most Chinese products there was‘a stiffness and minuteness which were extremely displeasing’， and that the defects in their arts were‘entirely owing to the peculiar turn of the people，amongst whom nothing great or spirited is to be met with’．58 In literature，‘their obstinacy and absurdity are most wonderful’． Chinese theories of morality were‘solely employed in recommending ridiculous attachments to certain immaterial points，instead of discussing the proper criterion of human actions， and regulating the general conduct of mankind to one another，on reasonable and equitable principles’．59 The Gentleman's Magazine argued in the 1750s that the Chinese were inferior to the Europeans in genius; they were，in addition，‘as crafty and cruel as the Leopard’．60 In 1761 Thomas Percy wrote that the Chinese people's customs，manners and notions were the‘most artificial in the world’．61 In the view of Johann Reinhold Forster，the Chinese showed‘a very inferior and servile genius，without any spirit’．62 In 1778 Samuel Johnson even said that the Chinese belonged to the ‘ East Indian Barbarians’．63 In 1781 William Falconer wrote that in China every one as a rule should be attentive to his own interest and promote it by any means since fraud was not considered a crime.64 Conversely ，some other writers made favourable comments. For instance，David Hume wrote that in China‘the sword’might be properly said to‘be always in the h ands of the people’． Thiswas a sufficient restraint upon the monarch who was obliged to put his courtiers and local mandarins under the restrictions of the law.65 Adam Smith，though critical of China in some other respects，stated that it had long been one of the‘richest，that is，one of the most fertile，best cultivated，most industrious， and most populous countries in the world’．66 In the view of William Marsden，the Chinese were perhaps‘on the same level as the“highest” European states’．67 William Chambers wrote in his A Dissertation on Ori-ental Gardening(1772) that the Chinese were‘a people whose skill in Gardening has of ten been the subject of praise; and whose manner has been setup amongstus as the st andard of imitation’．68 The author of A Cycle of Cathay found that in the late eighteenth century some English people still‘protested that the removal of a Chinese family to Engl and would seem like a transition from a civilized society to a“confusion of savages”’．69Historians have usually investigated Western views on China in a very generalway， and the examination of British views on China is only a small portion of their research upon Western perceptions of China，or upon British views of many countries over a long period. Although Zhongshu Qian's articles concentrate on a survey of English literature on China for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries，the author's investigation of British views was far from being complete. This is also true of William W. Appleton's A Cycle of Cathay. Much work remains to be done on British views on China，especially from the time of the Macartney embassy onwards.70 No extensive and specific research has been done on the views on China of the two embassies and their contemporaries despite the fact that comments or observations of some famous individuals of this period such as George Macartney， William Jones，John Barrow，Robert Morrison and James Mill，have been of ten quoted by historians. This period，it is argued，is significant in the British cultural investigation of China; it，among other things，represents a turning point in British views in the sense that after the Macartney embassy accounts weremuch more dependent on direct observation than in previous times.71 Maxine Berg takes the view that the Macartney embassy，‘occurring as it did at the end of the eighteenth century，was an eventwhich revealed changing perceptions of China and the Chinese by different British interest groups from government，trade，industry and enlightened opinion’．72 This work examines the views of both direct observers and those who had never been to China. It makes use of a wide range of relevant sources including both publications and manuscripts: books，pamphlets，articles，letters，etc. By so doing it seeks to make an overall and thorough survey of British views on China during the period of the two embassies. It also intends to investigate the writings on China of individual writers，whether famous or not，in a detailed way in order to present as a rounded view as possible. It should be pointed out that this study is not designed to examine British‘Orientalism’during the period of the two embassies. The term‘Orientalism’in Edward W. Said's Orientalism has its special definition. Here it is perhaps most appropriate to quote the author's own explanation.‘ Orientalism’isa distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic，scholarly，economic，sociological，historical， and philological texts; it is an elaboration not only of a basic geographical distinction(the world is made up of two unequal halves，Orient and Occident) but also of a whole series of “interests”which，by such means as scholarly discovery，philological reconstruction，psychological analysis，l andscape and sociological description，itnotonly creates but also maintains; it is，rather than expresses，a certain will or intention to underst and，in some cases to control，manipulate，even to incorporate，what is amanifestly different(or alternative and novel) world; it is，above all，a discourse that is by nomeans in direct，corresponding relationship with political power in the raw，but rather is produced and exists in an uneven exchange with various kinds of power，shaped to a degree by the exchange with power political(aswith a colonial or imperial establishment)，power intellectual(as with reigning sciences like comparative linguistics or anatomy，or any of themodern-policy sciences)，power cultural(as with orthodoxies and canons of taste，texts，values)，power moral(as with ideas about what “we”do and what“they”cannot do or underst and as“we”do)．73Said then adds that‘my real argument is that Orientalism is— and does not simply represent—a considerable dimension of modern political-intellectual culture， and as such has less to do with the Orient than it does with“our”world’．74 Whether there was or not such an‘Orientalism’in Britain during the time of the two embassies is not a main concern of this work， although Said's ideas will be referred to in a later chapter. Mostwriters here under examination could be by no means called Orientalists and some of them were nomore than ordinary travellers who told the public what they saw and heard during their travels in China. Thiswork，first（AI翻译）