To discuss early Qing history, this book focuses on “the symbolic practices that structured domination and legitimized authority” in the Qing court instead of the usual discussions of war-making and bureaucracy (p. 5). Keliher refers to the symbolic practices as ritual or rites, and argues that the Board of Rites systemized them to increase the domination and legitimacy of the Qing emperor in the process of Qing state-formation in the seventeenth century.

One of the characteristics of the Sinocentric world was its ritual-based world order, called li. The concept of li is not limited to ritual. It is a much more complicated term that extended into interpersonal relationships to control “behavioral practices, administrative norms, and sumptuary” regulations (p. 9). By carefully defining the historical, philosophical, and functional meanings of li in the introduction, Keliher provides some clear and helpful theoretical background information before diving into his main argument.

The author further describes what changed in li, particularly during the transition period from Ming to Qing. He identifies “three key changes in the practices of li: the nature of sovereignty, the expansion of rule, and the composition of the political order” (p. 14). He vividly elaborates on the changes through various specific examples, from greetings and attire to imperial relative relations and New Year's Day ceremonies in the seventeenth century.

Part 1, including the introduction, shows that the Jurchen (later Manchu) leaders became more concerned about their early organization and future direction towards an empire. They endured internal struggles to articulate their hierarchical role and position within their political boundaries. Part 2 illustrates the Qing emperors’ interest in how they were positioned and represented as rulers and performers in several different ceremonies. Their participation in ritual performance itself gave them a more symbolic legitimacy in the highly hierarchical political order.

Part 3 is dedicated to explaining the specific process of institutionalizing the political order in collaboration with Chinese advisors after Qing emperors settled in Beijing and ruled over the whole of China. The author also shows how li was codified and functioned as administrative law by discussing the compilation of the first Qing administrative code, the Da Qing huidian, which is an excellent example of the harmony between the ideal conception and actual practice of li (p. 191). He further shows how the Ming administrative code, the Da Ming huidian, and the Da Qing huidian are both interconnected with and disconnected from each other and highlights distinctive features of the latter as the national codes of the Manchu empire.

There are some topics readers might want to know more about, such as whether the Qing version of li was smoothly recreated without any turmoil. Keliher states that “the Manchu political organization and administrative apparatus was constructed out of rival groups and conflicting individuals tussling over both power and institutional assumption” (p. 44). He notes, “This system of li and the practices and regulations associated with it … emerged out of early contests for power, first over visions of the state, and then for control within the emerging institutional and symbolic frameworks” (pp. 197–198). In Chapter 6 the author also touches upon the factional disputes among imperial relatives. All in all, the administrative regulations based on li seemed to mitigate political tension to a certain extent. However, li could be a double-edged sword. As in the Grand Rites Controversy in the Ming dynasty, it could be used as a political apparatus to get rid of political rivals and create turmoil. The Qing emperors might have established and used the institutionalized version of li very wisely, but the author seems to neutralize the functions of li and miss the role of li in power contests.

The Qing emperors wanted to extend their influence and exercise their own discipline of li not only in domestic households but also in foreign affairs. Keliher also briefly discusses foreign relations in Da Ming huidian and Da Qing huidian in Chapter 8 and in his explanation of the second shift in li in the introduction. The Qing emperors’ world of li may have been much more extensive than that described in the book. Keliher's specific focus on li within the imperial court is impressive, but it limits the world of li to the court space or the people surrounding the Qing emperors.

The author does not specifically articulate his view of ritual. The defining explanation about Qing court ceremonies might be helpful to understand the meaning and function of ritual (pp. 75–80), but readers can be further advised that his co-authored journal article on Qing ritual might offer a better understanding of ritual or rites.Footnote ¹

Keliher clearly presents an informative and useful framework for clarifying how the authority, legitimacy, and compliance surrounding the formation of Qing China in the seventeenth century were established, constructed, and secured in accordance with the foundation of the Board of Rites in the Qing court. The book exists in an intersecting zone of institutional, political, and legal histories of Imperial China while dealing with various primary sources in Manchu and classical Chinese. As he concludes his book while locating the specific Qing institutional history in world history, it will also provide a useful backdrop not only for historians of Imperial China but also for researchers conducting comparative studies of the political system of East Asia, including Chosŏn Korea (1392–1910), which also adopted the Six Boards System with the Board of Rites.