[
    {
        "id": 206227,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1971",
        "page_number": 44,
        "title": "RAS-1971",
        "content_text": "38\n\nCHIU LING-YEONG\n\npower. However, she lacks a capable general to command this gigantic military force. To rely upon a tremendous number of soldiers without a brilliant commander is, in fact, unreliable...\n\n+\n\nThe most authoritative comment on Tseng's article was from Sir Rutherford Alcock, the former British Minister to China. He gave his opinion in the April issue of the Asiatic Quarterly Review, that China was not already awake, as Tseng had described in his work. He emphasized that the army and navy built up by Li Hung-chang could hardly be the equal of those of European powers. Alcock suggested that China must launch immediate political and financial reforms before she could quickly build up a strong and efficient army or navy.\n\nAfter the publication of Tseng's article, Charles Denby, United States' Minister to China, in his dispatch to the State Secretary, Thomas F. Bayard, included a copy of Tseng's article together with his personal comments. Denby thought all the points listed in Tseng's article had to wait for quite a long time before they could be smoothly carried out. Denby believed that China had to work very hard for centuries before she could win a decisive battle against any of the European powers. As long as China could not build her own railways, it was beyond her ability to do anything further; for Denby thought that railways were the most important thing, if China wanted to carry out political, economical and military reforms.\n\nOf all the comments and criticisms, none were as constructive and concrete as Ho Kai's. After Ho Kai read Tseng's work, which appeared in the China Mail in Hong Kong on 8 February 1887, he immediately wrote a lengthy article and had it published in the same paper on 16 February 1887. In his letter addressed to the editor, he said:\n\nI read with great interest in your issue of the 8th instant, a remarkable article on ‘China — the Sleep and Awakening' purporting to have been written by the Marquis Tseng, which will (as was there stated) 'appear in the forthcoming number of the Asiatic Quarterly Review.' I do not intend to write exactly a critical review of this truly 'remarkable' article, but I am resolved to take this early opportunity to offer a few humble words in season to the noble Marquis",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209492,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1982",
        "page_number": 149,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "127\n\n20\n\nPart of this, at a later date, was due to the influence of the popular novelist Sax Rohmer who invented the sinister but suave Dr. Fu Manchu, perennially at war with the tight-lipped, establishment Nayland Smith (Ian Fleming's Dr. No revives this stale mythology).2 The British public came to believe, as a result of press reports, that the insidious Doctor had become incarnate in the person of 'Brilliant Chang, a Chinese restaurateur and 'dope-king', whose premises were located in Gerrard Street, London, opposite the Forty Three Club, Mrs. Kate Meyrick's notorious night-club.27 Chang was a member, and supplied the club's rich clientele with narcotics, especially cocaine, until April 1924, when he was sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment, followed by deportation.28 Although the great majority of Britain's Chinese population were hard-working, intent on bettering their lot by economic enterprise, a constant process of stereotyping caricatured Chinese as inscrutable and complex, unknowable and different, sly and dangerous, separated by a vast cultural chasm from Englishmen. This, I believe, is suggested by Marshall Hall's comments in the Lock Ah Tam case and, as we shall see, by Sir Travers Humphreys' animadversions on Miao Chung-yi, whose case will now be examined.\n\nDr. Miao Chun-yi: a murder for profit?\n\nMiss Siu Wai-sheung married Miao Chung-yi, a doctor of law or jurisprudence, in New York on May 12, 1928.20 Born in 1899, she was the eldest daughter of Siu Ying-chau, a rich Macau merchant with business interests also in Hong Kong. Her mother was Siu's primary wife (tsai), but there were other children born to Siu's concubines (tsip). As a girl she was clever and able, and when her mother died in 1910 she helped run her father's household. She was educated at St. Stephen's Girls' College, Hong Kong, which she left in 1917 to further her education at Emerson College, Boston, U.S.A., and graduated in 1922. Then she returned home. In 1924 her father died. She was named sole executrice in his will; he left over a million dollars — an unusual event in those days when unmarried Chinese women had few, if any, testamentary rights. Moreover, she inherited much of his wealth, although she had a younger brother, and several half-brothers and half-sisters. Soon after",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209505,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1982",
        "page_number": 162,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "140\n\nH. J. LETHBRIDGE\n\n**Sax Rohmer, pseudonym of A.S. Ward (1886-1959). Rohmer's Chinese master-villain first appeared in Dr. Fu Manchu (1913), the start of a series of thrillers about Fu.\n\n27 His real name was Chang Wan but he was known as Brilliant Chang to police and public.\n\n**The Times for April 10 and 11, 1924. See also Robert Graves and Alan Hodge, The Long Week-end (London: Faber, 1941). One of Chang's clients was Brenda Dean Paul, a notorious upper-class drug-addict, daughter of Sir Aubrey Dean Paul, a former Lord Mayor of London.\n\n\"Some information about Miss Siu is given in the South China Morning Post on October 26, 1928. See also the Hongkong Telegraph for June 23, 1928.\n\n**Travers Humphreys, op. cit., p. 163.\n\n\"1 South China Morning Post, December 7, 1928.\n\nNecrophiliacs are rare but not unknown. The most famous was surely Sergent (Sergeant) Bertrand, whose activities are discussed in Marcel Montarron, Histoire des crimes sexuels (Paris: Presses de la Cité, 1971) 113-13. Another extraordinary necrophiliac Henri Blot, 'Le vampire de Saint-Ouen'—is discussed in Daniel Riche, Histoires criminelles de Paris/Ile-de-France (Paris: Presses de la Renaissance, 1980) 407-416.\n\n**The case is examined in Sir Travers Humphreys' A Book of Trials, op. cit. But see also Christmas Humphreys, Seven Murders (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946); E. Spencer Shew, A Companion to Murder (London: Cassell, 1960); and C.E. Bechhofer-Roberts, Sir Travers Humphreys: His Career and Cases (London: John Lane, 1936).\n\n*Sir Travers Humphreys (1867-1956). Called to the Bar, 1889. He was a distinguished criminal lawyer before becoming a Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, 1928-1951.\n\n*Joseph Cooksey Jackson K.C. (1879-1938) of the Northern Circuit. **Criminal Appeal Reports, vol. 21, 1930.\n\n**Travers Humphreys, op. cit, 162-163.\n\n06\n\n18 Ibid. 167.\n\n*Ibid, 168.\n\n40 J. Dyer Ball, Things Chinese; or, Notes Connected With China (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1925, fifth edition). Dyer Ball writes: \"The Chinese are not only remote from us as regards position on the globe, but they are our opposites in almost every action and thought\" (668).\n\n\"The late Victorians were much amused by Pidgin English. See Charles Godfrey Leland, Pidgin-English Sing-Song; or Songs and Stories in the China-English Dialect (London: Trubner, 1876).\n\n42 Op. cit., 164.\n\n\"Herbert John Bennett was accused of strangling his wife on Yarmouth Beach. The body was left in such a position as to suggest attempted rape. See Julian Symons, A Reasonable Doubt (London: Cresset Press, 1962).\n\n**Op. cit., 168.\n\n*A son and a daughter (Wai-sheung) were born to his primary wife. His other wives produced over ten children, two of whom were later returned students from the United States. See the South China Morning Post, June 25, 1928.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211472,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1988",
        "page_number": 188,
        "title": "RAS-1988",
        "content_text": "164\n\nfor being arrogant, did not accept Ruth, probably due to her discrimination against Mrs. Chang's programme. However, she accepted me, perhaps because I was considered uncontaminated and because Father was employed in a bank owned by \"white\" people. She made a poor choice because Ruth was by far the better student. Ruth then was accepted by Mrs. Creighton of Kauluwela School where she was placed directly in the third grade with Mrs. Bowman. Ruth stood out scholastically and was the pride of her teachers. She continued to do well in McKinley High School and won first prize and a gold medal upon graduation. Granted a Barbour scholarship at the University of Michigan, after a premedical programme at the University of Hawaii, she completed her academic medical studies and received a medical degree in 1929.\n\nAt Michigan Ruth met and became engaged to Herbert Kai Gee Wong of Hong Kong before he left to finish his medical studies at the University of Edinburgh. Unfortunately, Ruth sprained an ankle on a tour of a theatre during her last year of school and, even after surgery, was not able to walk normally or to accept an internship in a Philadelphia hospital. On her way back to Honolulu to recuperate, she spent a few days with me in Lincoln and some weeks with Dr. George S. Chan, a distant cousin, in Los Angeles. Being a herbalist, he tried unsuccessfully to heal the ankle with Chinese herbs. Once home she came under the care of Dr. Joseph Lam, family friend and schoolmate of Ruth's at Michigan. An injection of some new medication from Germany, administered by Dr. Mils Larsen, resulted in her death from septicemia on 6 June, 1932. Her three years of illness were a great strain on her and on the family. It was a great tragedy that such a brilliant woman was struck down just at the beginning of a promising career.\n\n―\n\nHelen was a very appealing child bright, sweet and smiling. During the Easter, Children's Day and Christmas services at the Kauluwela Mission, she was always asked to sing or perform. She attended Central Grammar School as I did and was a favourite of her teacher, Miss Padgett, and of the principal, Mrs. Sophie Overend, who had replaced Mrs. Carter. From there Helen went to McKinley High School, where, during her senior year, she was elected ROTC Sponsor for Company L. At the University of Hawaii, from which she graduated in three and a half years with a B.A. degree in Education, she was selected runner-up by movie star John Gilbert in a beauty contest among a group of",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212147,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 89,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "66\n\nexpression 'brilliant teaching' and its meaning. The first section of the inscription, which describes the main doctrines of the Christian faith and the missionary character of the Christian church, concludes as follows:\n\n\"This true and unchanging way is wonderful and hard to name. Its merit is so clear and its usefulness so obvious that we strive to express it by calling it the 'brilliant teaching'.”\n\nAdam also removed from a quotation in the Sian tablet inscription two inconvenient references to the former official identity of the Nestorian church, the teaching of the scriptures'. As has been mentioned earlier, the emperor T'ai-tsung gave permission in 638 for Reuben to build a Nestorian monastery in Ch'ang-an, and the relevant imperial decree has been preserved in the T'ang hui-yao. This decree is also quoted by Adam in the Sian tablet inscription, but with two slight, but significant, changes to the authentic text. Where the original referred to the virtuous Persian monk Reuben', Adam silently substituted 'Syrian' (Ta-ch'in) for 'Persian' and, carefully altering the original text of the imperial decree as little as possible, transformed the phrase 'Reuben has come to our high capital from afar with the teaching of the scriptures (ching-chiao)' into 'Reuben has come to our high capital from afar with scriptures and images (ching-chang)', by the deft alteration of only one Chinese character. Again, this suggests an effort to promote a new image: if the term 'brilliant teaching' had been firmly established in 781, it would have been unnecessary to take such pains to avoid references in the Sian inscription to the previous official identity of the Nestorian church.\n\nAdam and the promotion of the term 'Syrian Brilliant Teaching'\n\nIt should come as no surprise that a man of Adam's character was determined to ensure that his new term for Christianity, the 'Syrian brilliant teaching', should be uniformly applied by all Nestorian monasteries in China, so as to achieve maximum impact. There is evidence that, once this term had been adopted by the Nestorian church as an official description in 780, efforts were made to apply it consistently and to erase traces of the former official identity wherever they occurred. So far, this process has not been adequately analysed. In fact, a sustained effort appears to have been made in the",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212151,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 93,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "70\n\nof the Origin of Origins. Both texts prominently feature the expression Syrian brilliant teaching in their titles and explanatory notes at the end of the texts state that they were written in the 'Sha-chou Syrian monastery'. As the monastery is called a 'Syrian' rather than a 'Persian' monastery the manuscripts must have been either written or copied later than 745, and as they use Adam's term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' they can probably be dated to the 780s. But the explanatory notes at the end of the texts tell us that the first manuscript was copied in the fifth year of the Kai-yuan period (717) by Chang-ku, and the second in the eighth year of the same period (720) by Su-yüan, both novice monks (fa-tu) in the Tun-huang Nestorian monastery.\n\nWe have no reason whatever to believe that Nestorian monasteries were called 'Syrian' monasteries as early as the second decade of the eighth century, and indeed Hsüan-tsung's decree states quite specifically that they were called 'Persian' monasteries until 745. These early dates, therefore, can only be accepted if we reject the plain sense of Hsüan-tsung's decree of 745, ordering all Nestorian monasteries in China to adopt the title Ta-ch'in ssu, ‘Syrian monastery', and I prefer to conclude instead that our manuscripts of these two works were copied and edited in the 780s. We have seen already, in the case of T'ai-tsung's decree of 638, that Adam was not worried about introducing anachronisms into old texts if they were necessary to preserve the coherence of his new 'Syrian brilliant teaching' identity. Accordingly, we need not be surprised to find the term 'Syrian brilliant teaching' and 'Syrian monastery' employed in texts ostensibly written over thirty years before a Nestorian monastery could be called a 'Syrian monastery' and more than fifty years before Christianity would be described as the 'brilliant teaching'.\n\nNo doubt the originals of our copied manuscripts were indeed written in Tun-huang in the second decade of the eighth century by Chang-ku and Su-yüan. The puzzle is to explain how it was possible for the Kai-yuan documents, as I shall call them for convenience, to be translated into Chinese at Tun-huang in the early eighth century, when Reuben's Syriac texts of these works lay neglected in Ch'ang-an's imperial library; and why it was necessary for Adam to translate these two works into Chinese in the 780s, as the Book of Praise implies he did, when Chinese versions already existed at Tun-huang. I can only conjecture what might have happened. Obviously some of Reuben's Syriac 'scriptures' existed in China in more than one manuscript, and the monks at Tun-huang in the early eighth century had their own",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212152,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 94,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "71\n\ntexts of these two works. Adam, working in the imperial library in Ch'ang-an sixty years later, probably translated Reuben's Syriac originals into Chinese without realising that translations had already been produced in far-off Tun-huang. Later, as the Book of Praise implies, he sent Chinese translations of thirty-five Syriac works to Tun-huang, and his new translations of the Kai-yuan documents were among them. The Tun-huang monks were evidently unwilling to destroy their own Chinese translations and replace them with Adam's, and it is their version which has survived, but in a copy made in the 780s. Adam had probably directed that new Chinese texts on Christian subjects should consistently use the 'Syrian brilliant teaching' identity, and that old texts should be edited where possible, to be brought into line with the new style. The monks therefore recopied and lightly edited their own Chinese texts to conform to the new identity. But they continued, understandably, to acknowledge the translation work carried out more than sixty years previously by their own monastery's monks, Chang-ku and Su-yüan.\n\nEpilogue: the Five Dynasties Period\n\nWe have seen how Adam tried to ensure that all Nestorian churches in China consistently used the term 'Syrian brilliant teaching'. During his lifetime, his position as metropolitan of China ensured that his flock complied with his wishes, but it is clear that the consistency by which he set such store broke down once he was no longer there to enforce it. This process can be seen at work in the manuscript in which the Hymn in Adoration of the Holy Trinity and the Book of Praise have been preserved. The former work seems to have been copied in the 780s, as it consistently applies the terminology found in the Sian tablet inscription. But the Book of Praise, although written on the same piece of parchment as the Hymn in Adoration of the Holy Trinity, is written in a different hand and clearly at a much later date.\n\nThe Book of Praise, much of which is a hymn of thanksgiving for the existence of the 35 Syriac works translated by Adam, seems to have been written either in the tenth or the early eleventh century. The Tun-huang cave in which it was found was sealed in 1036, providing a terminus ante quem for its composition, and the formulation ‘emperor T'ai-tsung of the T'ang', proves that it was written after the final collapse of the T'ang dynasty in 906. At any rate, it was written not long before or after Abu'l Faraj met the despondent Nestorian monk",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212153,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1990",
        "page_number": 95,
        "title": "RAS-1990",
        "content_text": "72\n\nin the Christian quarter of Baghdad, when Ch'ang-an and its glories were only a distant memory, and the Nestorian church in China proper was virtually extinct.\n\nIts tone is one of elegiac regret for an illustrious past, when the leaders of the Nestorian church had enjoyed access to the emperors of China; when Fang Hsüan-ling and Wei-cheng, two of the most powerful men in T'ai-tsung's court, had welcomed the first Nestorian missionary to China, and when the emperor Te-tsung had summoned a Nestorian archbishop to the imperial palace to translate the Christian scriptures into Chinese. The term 'brilliant teaching' does not appear either in the text of the Book of Praise or in the explanatory note, although there is a single reference in the note to our religion of Ta-ch'in'. The text of the Book of Praise lists, as we have seen, a number of books brought by Reuben to China in 635, including the Book of the Secret of Peace and Joy, the Book of the Origin of Origins, the Hymn in Adoration of the Holy Trinity, and the Hymn in Adoration of the Transfiguration of Our Lord. The manuscripts of the last three documents which have survived contain the term 'Syrian Brilliant Teaching' in their titles, but the phrase is omitted from the titles as given in the Book of Praise. Also, the term ching-feng (pure wind) is no longer used for Holy Spirit: instead we find a transliteration of the Syriac Ruha de Kudsha. The man who wrote the Book of Praise did so on a manuscript which contained a text of the Hymn in Adoration of the Holy Trinity with 'Syrian Brilliant Teaching' prominently displayed in the hymn's title. He nevertheless felt able to ignore this example of 'correct' usage in the Book of Praise.\n\nThere are a number of stylistic similarities between the Book of Praise and the Book of the Secret of Peace and Joy, which suggest that our manuscript of the latter, although deriving from a seventh century Syriac original translated into Chinese by Adam, was copied in the tenth century. Firstly, its title is exactly as given in the text of the Book of Praise, and does not contain the expression 'Syrian brilliant teaching', found in the other late eighth-century manuscripts. Secondly, as in the Book of Praise, a transliteration of the Syriac Ruha de Kudsha is used instead of the term ching feng to denote the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, both texts use an obscure transliteration of the Sogdian word for 'rock' in the proper name 'Simon Peter' (Chang-wan Chang-jia, 'Simon the Rock'), instead of adopting a straightforward Chinese equivalent. Fourthly, both texts use one only of the two",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1990.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/d79206299",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212736,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1992",
        "page_number": 45,
        "title": "RAS-1992",
        "content_text": "30\n\nin 1886, a year after he had ended his service 'being retained by Viceroy Chang Chih-tung in Canton.' It would appear that he mistakenly claimed the seal bore the more senior rank.\n\nMesny - Neither Chinese nor Western: But Perhaps Both\n\nMesny lived within the two cultures to the extent that we are left in no doubt that he was able to see both the good and the bad in both. He criticised national traits of Chinese and westerners on numerous occasions, though despite the almost universal criticisms by western travellers in China of the dirt, personal filthiness, disregard for decency, boorishness and inquisitiveness, to say nothing of the incessant and noisy talk, Mesny never comments. Foreign travellers almost without exception comment on one or more of the following Chinese characteristics, their remarkable mechanical aptitude, with a delicacy of touch; a patience probably unrivalled in the world; adding however that their inability to draw the necessary inferences, and improving and inventing as they proceeded always surprises. The Chinese, they continue, are an intensely practical people who dislike doing anything for which there is no necessity; and finally, despite there being hardly a product which Chinese would not use, and with a hatred of waste that makes them utilise everything, westerners are always amazed that they should be so averse to milk and milk products. Mesny hardly touches any of these matters, possibly as they had either not crossed his mind or more likely because he saw no reason to add to the chorus.\n\nHe was not impervious to Chinese arrogance and occasionally added a barbed aside such as his reference to a non-Chinese tribe in southern China when he added, ... [the Chinese] are ever ready to apply the very opprobrious term of barbarian to every other people, but not their darling selves...' A more telling paragraph amidst the hundreds of snippets or topics, and pen pictures of things Chinese which were the primary fillers of his weekly Miscellanies, one written in February 1905, after forty-five years in China, and therefore presumably a distillation of his views, was a description of:\n\n'Chinamen [sic]. hua-jen #A, a Brilliant man, a Glorious or Elegant Person, a Chinaman.\n\nPage 45\n\nPage 46",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1992.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qf85tx75x",
        "rank": 0
    }
]