RAS-1976 — Page 37

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

RICHARD J. SMITH

11 Comparative studies on selected aspects of modernizing change in these two time periods would be illuminating. One might compare, for example, the aims and accomplishments of the Peking Tung-wen kuan (established in 1862) and the Bansho Shirabesho (established in 1858). On the former, see Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-chih Restoration, 1862-1874 (New York, 1967), 241-248; on the latter, consult Marius Jansen, "New Materials for the Intellectual History of Nineteenth-Century Japan," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 20 (1957), 569-582. On the use of Westerners in military affairs in Japan from 1853-1868, see Presseisen, 1-23; H. J. Jones, "Bakumatsu Foreign Employees," Monumenta Serica, 29.3 (Autumn, 1974).

12 Presseisen, chapter 1; Smith, , chapter 4.

13 Albert Craig, Chôshu in the Meiji Restoration (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 131-136, 201-203, etc.; Richard J. Smith, "Foreign-Training and China's Self-Strengthening: The Case of Fenghuang-shan, 1864-1873,” Modern Asian Studies, 10.2 (1976).

14 Presseisen, 22-23.

15 See notes 7 and 8; also Hyman Kublin, "The 'Modern' Army of Early Meiji Japan," Far Eastern Quarterly, 9.1 (November, 1949), 24-26; Meron Medzini, French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 125-133.

16 For a discussion of Li's modernizing efforts, his extensive use of foreign assistance, and the obstacles he encountered, see S. Y. Teng and John K. Fairbank, China's Response to the West (New York, 1966), 111-112; K. C. Liu, “The Confucian as Patriot and Pragmatist: Li Hung-chang's Formative Years, 1823-1866,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 30 (1970); Kenneth Folsom, Friends, Guests and Colleagues (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 152-157; and K. C. Liu, “Li Hung-chang in Chihli,” in Albert Feuerwerker, et al., eds. Approaches to Modern Chinese History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967).

17 See, for example, Lord Charles Beresford, The Break-up of China (New York and London, 1899), 267-289, esp. 270-280; Major A. E. J. Cavendish, "The Armed Strength (?) of China," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 42 (June, 1898), 709-710, 713-714, 717; Richard J. Smith, "Chinese Military Institutions in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1850-1860," Journal of Asian History, 8.2 (1974), 127.

18 See Smith, "Foreign-Training," 212; Cavendish, 709-710, 713-714.

19 See, for example, Cavendish, esp. 720-723; Captain W. R. E. Gill, "The Chinese Army," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 24 (1881), 371-377; Chester Holcombe, China's Past and Future (London, 1904), 81-88; "The Chinese and Japanese Armies," reprinted from the Army and Navy Gazette in the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, 15 (1894), 1258; James Scott, "The Chinese Brave," Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1 (1886), esp. 240; etc.

20 See Smith, , Chapters 8 and 9.

21 See Yang-wu yün-tung cited in Smith, "Foreign-Training," 218. On Chinese resistance to foreign instructors and officers, see ibid.; also Cavendish, 720-721.

22 See, for example, L. C. Arlington, Through the Dragon's Eyes (London, 1931), 18; Stanley Wright, Hart and the Chinese Customs (Belfast, 1950), 478-481; John Rawlinson, China's Struggle for Naval Development, 1839-1895 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 65-78, 93-94, 163; Holcombe, 80-85, esp. 83.

Edit History

2026-05-12 21:05:45 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

22 RICHARD J. SMITH 11 Comparative studies on selected aspects of modernizing change in these two time periods would be illuminating. One might compare, for example, the aims and accomplishments of the Peking Tung-wen kuan (established in 1862) and the Bansho Shirabesho (established in 1858). On the former, see Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-chih Restoration, 1862-1874 (New York, 1967), 241-248; on the latter, consult Marius Jansen, "New Materials for the Intellectual History of Nineteenth-Century Japan," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 20 (1957), 569-582. On the use of Westerners in military affairs in Japan from 1853-1868, see Presseisen, 1-23; H. J. Jones, "Bakumatsu Foreign Employees," Monumenta Serica, 29.3 (Autumn, 1974). 12 Presseisen, chapter 1; Smith, , chapter 4. 13 Albert Craig, Chôshu in the Meiji Restoration (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), 131-136, 201-203, etc.; Richard J. Smith, "Foreign-Training and China's Self-Strengthening: The Case of Fenghuang-shan, 1864-1873,” Modern Asian Studies, 10.2 (1976). 14 Presseisen, 22-23. 15 See notes 7 and 8; also Hyman Kublin, "The 'Modern' Army of Early Meiji Japan," Far Eastern Quarterly, 9.1 (November, 1949), 24-26; Meron Medzini, French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 125-133. 16 For a discussion of Li's modernizing efforts, his extensive use of foreign assistance, and the obstacles he encountered, see S. Y. Teng and John K. Fairbank, China's Response to the West (New York, 1966), 111-112; K. C. Liu, “The Confucian as Patriot and Pragmatist: Li Hung-chang's Formative Years, 1823-1866,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 30 (1970); Kenneth Folsom, Friends, Guests and Colleagues (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 152-157; and K. C. Liu, “Li Hung-chang in Chihli,” in Albert Feuerwerker, et al., eds. Approaches to Modern Chinese History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967). 17 See, for example, Lord Charles Beresford, The Break-up of China (New York and London, 1899), 267-289, esp. 270-280; Major A. E. J. Cavendish, "The Armed Strength (?) of China," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 42 (June, 1898), 709-710, 713-714, 717; Richard J. Smith, "Chinese Military Institutions in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1850-1860," Journal of Asian History, 8.2 (1974), 127. 18 See Smith, "Foreign-Training," 212; Cavendish, 709-710, 713-714. 19 See, for example, Cavendish, esp. 720-723; Captain W. R. E. Gill, "The Chinese Army," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 24 (1881), 371-377; Chester Holcombe, China's Past and Future (London, 1904), 81-88; "The Chinese and Japanese Armies," reprinted from the Army and Navy Gazette in the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, 15 (1894), 1258; James Scott, "The Chinese Brave," Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1 (1886), esp. 240; etc. 20 See Smith, , Chapters 8 and 9. 21 See Yang-wu yün-tung cited in Smith, "Foreign-Training," 218. On Chinese resistance to foreign instructors and officers, see ibid.; also Cavendish, 720-721. 22 See, for example, L. C. Arlington, Through the Dragon's Eyes (London, 1931), 18; Stanley Wright, Hart and the Chinese Customs (Belfast, 1950), 478-481; John Rawlinson, China's Struggle for Naval Development, 1839-1895 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 65-78, 93-94, 163; Holcombe, 80-85, esp. 83.

Baseline (Original)

22 RICHARD J. SMITH 11 Comparative studies on selected aspects of modernizing change in these two time periods would be illuminating. One might compare, for example, the aims and accomplishments of the Peking Tung-wen kuan (established in 1862) and the Bansho Shirabesho (established in 1858). On the former, see Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-chih Restoration, 1862-1874 (New York, 1967), 241-248; on the latter, consult Marius Jansen, "New Materials for the Intellectual History of Nineteenth-Century Japan," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 20 (1957), 569 - 582. On the use of Westerners in military affairs in Japan from 1853-1868, see Presseisen, 1-23; H. J. Jones, "Bakumatsu Foreign Employees," Monumenta Serica, 29.3 (Autumn, 1974). 12 Presseisen, chapter 1; Smith, Ward, Gordon and the Ever-Victorious Army, chapter 4. 13 Albert Craig, Chôshu in the Meiji Restoration (Cambridge, Mass.. 1961), 131 - 136, 201-203, etc.; Richard J. Smith, "Foreign-Training and China's Self-Strengthening: The Case of Fenghuang-shan, 1864-1873,” Modern Asian Studies, 10.2 (1976). 14 Presseisen, 22-23. 15 See notes 7 and 8; also Hyman Kublin, "The 'Modern' Army of Early Meiji Japan," Far Eastern Quarterly, 9.1 (November, 1949), 24-26; Meron Medzini, French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 125 - 133. 16 For a discussion of Li's modernizing efforts, his extensive use of foreign assistance, and the obstacles he encountered, see S. Y. Teng and John K. Fairbank, China's Response to the West (New York, 1966), 111-112; K. C. Liu, “The Confucian as Patriot and Pragmatist: Li Hung- chang's Formative Years, 1823-1866,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 30 (1970); Kenneth Folsom, Friends, Guests and Colleagues (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 152 - 157; and K. C. Liu, “Li Hung-chang in Chihli,” in Albert Feuerwerker, et. al., eds. Approaches to Modern Chinese History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967). 17 See, for example, Lord Charles Beresford, The Break-up of China (New York and London, 1899), 267-289, esp. 270-280; Major A. E. J. Cavendish, "The Armed Strength (?) of China," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 42 (June, 1898), 709-710, 713-714, 717; Richard J. Smith, "Chinese Military Institutions in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1850-1860," Journal of Asian History, 8.2 (1974), 127. 18 See Smith, "Foreign-Training," 212; Cavendish, 709-710, 713-714. 19 See, for example, Cavendish, esp. 720-723; Captain W. R. E. Gill, "The Chinese Army," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 24 (1881), 371-377; Chester Holcombe, China's Past and Future (London, 1904), 81-88; "The Chinese and Japanese Armies," reprinted from the Army and Navy Gazette in the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, 15 (1894), 1258; James Scott, "The Chinese Brave," Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1 (1886), esp. 240; etc. 20 See Smith, Ward, Gordon and the Ever Victorious Army, Chapters 8 and 9. 21 See Yang-wu yün-tung cited in Smith, "Foreign-Training," 218. On Chinese resistance to foreign instructors and officers, see ibid.; also Caven- dish, 720-721. 22 See, for example, L. C. Arlington, Through the Dragon's Eyes (London, 1931), 18; Stanley Wright, Hart and the Chinese Customs (Belfast, 1950), 478 -481; John Rawlinson, China's Struggle for Naval Development, 1839-1895 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 65-78, 93-94, 163; Holcombe, 80-85, esp. 83.

2026-05-12 21:05:45 · Baseline

View content

RICHARD J. SMITH

11 Comparative studies on selected aspects of modernizing change in these two time periods would be illuminating. One might compare, for example, the aims and accomplishments of the Peking Tung-wen kuan (established in 1862) and the Bansho Shirabesho (established in 1858). On the former, see Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-chih Restoration, 1862-1874 (New York, 1967), 241-248; on the latter, consult Marius Jansen, "New Materials for the Intellectual History of Nineteenth-Century Japan," Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 20 (1957), 569 - 582. On the use of Westerners in military affairs in Japan from 1853-1868, see Presseisen, 1-23; H. J. Jones, "Bakumatsu Foreign Employees," Monumenta Serica, 29.3 (Autumn, 1974).

12 Presseisen, chapter 1; Smith, Ward, Gordon and the Ever-Victorious Army, chapter 4.

13 Albert Craig, Chôshu in the Meiji Restoration (Cambridge, Mass.. 1961), 131 - 136, 201-203, etc.; Richard J. Smith, "Foreign-Training and China's Self-Strengthening: The Case of Fenghuang-shan, 1864-1873,” Modern Asian Studies, 10.2 (1976).

14 Presseisen, 22-23.

15 See notes 7 and 8; also Hyman Kublin, "The 'Modern' Army of Early Meiji Japan," Far Eastern Quarterly, 9.1 (November, 1949), 24-26; Meron Medzini, French Policy in Japan during the Closing Years of the Tokugawa Regime (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), 125 - 133.

16 For a discussion of Li's modernizing efforts, his extensive use of foreign assistance, and the obstacles he encountered, see S. Y. Teng and John K. Fairbank, China's Response to the West (New York, 1966), 111-112; K. C. Liu, “The Confucian as Patriot and Pragmatist: Li Hung- chang's Formative Years, 1823-1866,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 30 (1970); Kenneth Folsom, Friends, Guests and Colleagues (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968), 152 - 157; and K. C. Liu, “Li Hung-chang in Chihli,” in Albert Feuerwerker, et. al., eds. Approaches to Modern Chinese History (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967).

17 See, for example, Lord Charles Beresford, The Break-up of China (New York and London, 1899), 267-289, esp. 270-280; Major A. E. J. Cavendish, "The Armed Strength (?) of China," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 42 (June, 1898), 709-710, 713-714, 717; Richard J. Smith, "Chinese Military Institutions in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1850-1860," Journal of Asian History, 8.2 (1974), 127.

18 See Smith, "Foreign-Training," 212; Cavendish, 709-710, 713-714. 19 See, for example, Cavendish, esp. 720-723; Captain W. R. E. Gill, "The Chinese Army," Journal of the Royal United Service Institution, 24 (1881), 371-377; Chester Holcombe, China's Past and Future (London, 1904), 81-88; "The Chinese and Japanese Armies," reprinted from the Army and Navy Gazette in the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, 15 (1894), 1258; James Scott, "The Chinese Brave," Asiatic Quarterly Review, 1 (1886), esp. 240; etc.

20 See Smith, Ward, Gordon and the Ever Victorious Army, Chapters 8 and 9.

21 See Yang-wu yün-tung cited in Smith, "Foreign-Training," 218. On Chinese resistance to foreign instructors and officers, see ibid.; also Caven- dish, 720-721.

22 See, for example, L. C. Arlington, Through the Dragon's Eyes (London, 1931), 18; Stanley Wright, Hart and the Chinese Customs (Belfast, 1950), 478 -481; John Rawlinson, China's Struggle for Naval Development, 1839-1895 (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 65-78, 93-94, 163; Holcombe, 80-85, esp. 83.

RAS-1976 — Page 37

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note