217
1863 added to this heroic penumbra, one which should be mentioned only after some further evaluations of the "martyrdom of Ch'ea" are considered.
From all appearances it seems that Ch'ëa's murderers unwittingly added fuel to the image of his heroic martyrdom. But there are some reasons to question the account quoted extensively above. Where did the testimony of Ch'ea's last words come from? The only possible source would be the murderers themselves, but we have no confirmation that Legge had gotten this information from them when he later had correspondence with their more demure and frightened leaders. Information Chalmers had received came from trusted Chinese co-workers such as A-Wai (A-Wye?) and those fleeing the area, but how much could they have known for certain? That Ch'ëa was probably under the threat of losing his life for not returning to worship "ancestors and idols" fits with all the previous elements of his own conversion, the scorn he received for his association with foreign Christians, and the local fears tied to spiritual repercussions from such stubborn defiance against the invisible authorities in the spirits of the land and the reverenced ancestors. That he had also lived much of his life in self-conscious reflection on passages of the Chinese New Testament and other Christian literature also should not be denied, but the hagiographic stereotype of his final words before his murderers, even though certainly possible, seem more a product of hopeful Christians than eyewitnesses. This is particularly important in the light of the unreliable data evident in the writings of Legge's daughter on the event.
91
What is another puzzling aspect of the whole scene is that nothing was done about it in the higher echelons of either British or Qing bureaucracy. Already by the end of January 1861 the Zǒnglǐ yámén, the Qing empire's first attempt at institutionalizing a Foreign Affairs Bureau, had been given imperial approval. 92 “Religious affairs” (zōngjiào'àn) were part of their responsibilities, and proved to be a set of extremely sensitive and difficult issues to resolve. Cohen has listed a large number of them for the period from 1861 to 1870, but refers to the first Protestant case only in 1867.93 If Cohen's summary is meant to reflect the cases on file in
217
1863 added to this heroic penumbra, one which should be mentioned only after some further evaluations of the "martyrdom of Ch'ea" are considered.
From all appearances it seems that Ch'ëa's murderers unwittingly added fuel to the image of his heroic martyrdom. But there are some reasons to question the accounted quoted extensively above. Where did the testimony of Ch'ea's last words come from? The only possible source would be the murderers themselves, but we have no confirmation that Legge had gotten this information from them when he later had correspondence with their more demure and frightened leaders. Information Chalmers had received came from trusted Chinese co-workers such as A-Wai (A-Wye?) and those fleeing the area, but how much could they have known for certain? That Ch❜ëa was probably under the threat of losing his life for not returning to worship "ancestors and idols" fits with all the previous elements of his own conversion, the scorn he received for his association with foreign Christians, and the local fears tied to spiritual repercussions from such stubborn defiance against the invisible authorities in the spirits of the land and the reverenced ancestors. That he had also lived much of his life in self-conscious reflection on passages of the Chinese New Testament and other Christian literature also should not be denied, but the hagiographic stereotype of his final words before his murderers, even though certainly possible, seem more a product of hopeful Christians than eyewitnesses. This is particularly important in the light of the unreliable data evident in the writings of Legge's daughter on the event.
91
What is another puzzling aspect of the whole scene is that nothing was done about it in the higher echelons of either British or Qing bureaucracy. Already by the end of January 1861 the Zănglĩ yámén, the Qing empire's first attempt at institutionalizing a Foreign Affairs Bureau, had been given imperial approval. 92 “Religious affairs” (zōngjião’àn) were part of their responsibilities, and proved to be a set of extremely sensitive and difficult issues to resolve. Cohen has listed a large number of them for the period from 1861 to 1870, but refers to the first Protestant case only in 1867.93 If Cohen's summary is meant to reflect the cases on file in
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.