[
    {
        "id": 205286,
        "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-1967",
        "page_number": 48,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "PRINTING: A NEW DISCOVERY\n\n41\n\nThe Korean find adds one important brick to the edifice we may call the history of printing. It does not fundamentally change the edifice, however. Everything still points, in my opinion, to the beginnings of the invention in China, and its spread outward from there, Buddhism being one of the principal vehicles for its distribution. The monks of that day were a migratory lot. It seems entirely likely that one or more of them, Chinese or Korean, made use of the novel device in the kingdom of Silla, while another, Japanese or Chinese or Korean, introduced it a few years later to Nara, then capital of Japan. It is significant and curious that, in spite of its early introduction to both countries, printing does not really become established amongst either people until three centuries later.\n\nThis is a preliminary report, based on illustrations and newspaper articles sent me by Professor Young-gyu Minn of Yonsei University, Mr. Huh Young-kwan, reporter of the Hankook Ilbo (Seoul), and Mr. K. R. Crim of the Presbyterian Mission in Seoul. One may hope that before long the Korean authorities on early printing will publish an exhaustive monograph, fully illustrated, on this important discovery.\n\nNote: In writing this sketch I have benefited greatly from discussion of the find with my colleagues Professors Chaoying Fang and Gari Ledyard, both of whom read Korean, which I do not.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 210376,
        "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-1984",
        "page_number": 347,
        "title": "RAS-1984",
        "content_text": "326\n\nfor a di-al relations .... and the multilateral relations... plomacy that was modelled on patterns inherited from antiquity” (p. 141).\n\nOn the other hand, Professor Charles Peterson argues that the Sung policy towards the Mongols and the Jurchen state of Chin was so much burdened or preoccupied by the revanchist heritage that the decision to destroy the Chin seemed awkwardly irrational. Moreover, Peterson points out that the Sung Mongol policy \"showed [even] less consistency” (p. 230). Perhaps the relationship with the Mongols was way beyond what is commonly defined as “diplomacy” and the quite flexible “multi-state system” or “bilateral relationship” had in this instance reached its limits of usefulness. In any case, the Sung certainly made the best use of the \"multi-state system\". However, there is a problem in this interpretation.\n\nBut let me turn first to the \"yin-yang” model presented by Professor Gari Ledyard. One suspects that Chinese ways (and not just way) of conceptualizing the world order were never uniformly or consistently applied. My understanding is that the Chinese liked to think that they were always in the offensive yang position, and so always managing the Asian world order but the reality is that China was often also in the yin phase. Ledyard's essay gives one the impression that a yin-yang analytical approach to Chinese history could help us understand Asian history as a whole. This is interesting: even taking for granted the inadequacy of the dynastic cycle approach, this interpretation of Asian history remains Chinese history writ large.\n\nComing back to the common assumptions shared by the Chinese and the Mongolians concerning the origin, character and extent of their right to rule the world, it thus seems that whenever China was in the yin phase, other states would be glad to play the role of suzerain, thus unwittingly perpetuating the Chinese conception of world order. If even the Mongols, and certainly the Liao and the Chin, sought to create a world order based on a hierarchical approach, by relegating different states to different statuses, then the Sung really did not have a chance to even pretend that it was treated “equally\" or that it was conducting “equal\" foreign",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1984.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/5h73wh572",
        "rank": 0
    }
]