[
    {
        "id": 205143,
        "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-1966",
        "page_number": 99,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "94\n\nHOLMES WELCH\n\nI have not heard of other monasteries in China that had such wide-spreading or deep-rooted connections overseas as Ku Shan. It may have been unique. But it was extremely common for monks and lay pilgrims to go back and forth between overseas Chinese communities and the \"famous mountains” at home. Even at Wu-t'ai Shan near the Inner Mongolian border, one could find pilgrims from Singapore. In 1936, when Tai Chi-t'ao was on his way back from Europe, he stopped in Manila to lay the cornerstone of a new Buddhist temple sponsored by a group of overseas Chinese who, since 1930, had been serving as Philippines distributor for a Buddhist publishing house in Soochow. Here as elsewhere in southeast Asia, Buddhism was a link with the motherland.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 James Troup, \"On the tenets of the Shinshiu or 'True Sect' of Buddhists,\" Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 16 (June 1886), 14-16.\n\n2 Takada, Giko, Chusi shukyo daido renmei nenkan (Yearbook of the Great Harmony Religious Alliance of Central China), Shanghai, 1943, p. 10. I am obliged to Dr. Ho Kuan-chung for making this book available to me.\n\n3 Yang Jen-shan, Yang Jen-shang chü-shih i-chu (Works of upasaka Yang Jen-shang), Peking, 1923, 1:5. This temple appears to have gone out of existence at some later date, since the Nanking branch of Honganji mentioned by Takada (see preceding note) was set up in 1938. A Japanese temple in Changsha was noted by Hackmann in 1911 (German Scholar in the East, London, 1914, p. 108). This is also unlisted by Takada.\n\n4. Franke, “Die Propaganda des japanischen Buddhismus in China”, Ostasiatische Neubildungen, Hamburg, 1911, p. 159. This article by Franke is the source of most of the information given in the text, pp. 2-4.\n\n5 This episode is also referred to in Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü tashih nien-p'u, Hong Kong, 1950, p. 35-36, where thirteen monasteries in Hangchow alone were said to have become affiliated with the Honganji. More investigation is needed.\n\n6 Takada, p. 14.\n\n7 There were twenty-six Chinese delegates, according to Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 203. The official head of the Chinese delegation and Chinese vice-chairman of the conference was Tao-chieh, under whom T'ai-hsü had studied twenty years before (Yin-shun, T'ai-hsü, p. 26 ff). T'ai-hsü may be pardoned, perhaps, for giving people the impression that he was himself the chief of the delegation. (See, for example, Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 177; T'ai-hsü Lectures on Buddhism, Paris, 1928, p. 14,\n\n8 Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 179-180.\n\n9 This and other information given here on the East Asian Buddhist Conference comes largely from Young East 1.6 (November 8, 1925), 176-177.\n\n10 Tokiwa Daijo, Shina bukkyo shiseki kinen shu (Buddhist Monuments in China, Memorial Collection), Tokyo, 1931, p. 203.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 213200,
        "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-1994",
        "page_number": 22,
        "title": "RAS-1994",
        "content_text": "ARTICLES\n\nTHE GERMAN SPEAKING COMMUNITY IN HONG KONG 1846-1918\n\nCARL T. SMITH\n\nIntroduction - Some Problems\n\nThe documents used for this study seldom indicate the language spoken by the person named in the document. The researcher must depend upon the spelling of the name as an indication of national origin. Such a method is fraught with difficulties and pitfalls.\n\nA document may identify a person as being from Switzerland, but were they German speaking? The family language of a Swiss may be German, French, Italian or Romanish. Someone in Hong Kong with a German sounding name may have come here from England, America or another country where his ancestor had settled. The person may no longer be German speaking, his family having adopted the language of their new community. One prominent Hong Kong family has a distinct German name. They are Eurasian and the family tradition is that their Caucasian progenitor in Hong Kong left Germany at the time of the 1848 Revolution in Germany and settled in England. He subsequently came to Hong Kong as a businessman and later returned to England but without his Eurasian family.\n\nAs the borders of the German states and subsequent nation changed through the years so did the nationality of the residents of these areas. The Chinese Repository published in the 1830s and 1840s lists foreign residents on the China coast. A few of these lists give the nationality of the persons listed. In 1845 the Hong Kong shopkeeper Frederick Funk is listed as French. The name sounds German. He may have been from Alsace or Lorraine where, according to political changes, the inhabitants would have been French or German nationals. The eastern border of Germany also fluctuated. In the 1850s and 1860s there was in Hong Kong a tavern keeper and auctioneer named Henry Winniberg - German sounding, but one record identified him as Polish. A number of Jews with German sounding names settled in Hong Kong, principally after the 1880s. The well-known restaurant family of London apparently came some years later.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 213239,
        "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-1994",
        "page_number": 61,
        "title": "RAS-1994",
        "content_text": "40\n\nfirm and Mr. Friedrich Christian Lemke was authorised to sign for the firm (GG 1 Jan. 1885). From 1879 to 1881 Mr. Garrels had been an assistant in Siemssen and Company, but in 1882 transferred to Meyer and Co. He remained a partner of Meyer and Co. until its name was changed in 1908 to Garrels, Bomer and Co.\n\nHeinrich Friedrick Myerink was admitted a partner in Meyer and Co. in 1878 (DP 1 Jan. 1878). He left the firm by 1884. From 1890 he was connected with the firm of William Meyerink and Co. The head office was in Shanghai, and a partner Max Tiefenbach was in Hamburg. Hermann Friedrich Meyerink died at Kobe on 10 September 1908, aged fifty-eight (DP 21 Sept. 1908). William Meyerink died in 1928, aged eighty-two (SCMP 31 Oct. 1928).\n\nAnother partner of Meyer and Co. was O. Grabe, who was authorised to sign for the firm at Tientsin in 1874 (DP 3 Jan. 1874). His interest as a partner ceased in 1879, but he continued to sign until 31 May 1880 (DP 1 Jan. 1880). Gustav Fischer replaced Grabe as a partner. Johann George Ludwig Schroter and Hermann Friedrich George Borner became partners in 1896. The latter had been a former assistant in Siemssen and Co. before joining the staff of Meyer and Co. as an assistant. In 1896 the firm operated in Shanghai under the name of Meyer, Lemke and Co.\n\nThere was a name change in 1908. Meyer and Co. became Garrels, Börner and Co., though there was not a change in partnership at the time. The partners were J. Heinrich Garrels, Herman Borner, Paul Wassendorf, and Carl Schroter. Hartwig Nellmer continued to sign for the firm (SCMP 1 July 1908). The Company was placed under liquidation in 1914.\n\nOne of the three assistants in E. and J. Meyer and Co. in 1866 was Gottfried Carl Friedrich Rodatz. He left in 1868 to open a ship chandlery with Rudolph Freeks. The business continued until 1878 (DP 11 May 1878). Mr. Rodatz was Secretary of Club Germania in 1876.\n\nHeuermann, Herbst and Co.\n\nLeopold Frickel conducted a ship chandlery and sail-making establishment on Queen's Road from 1862. The business later became McEwen, Frickel and Co. It was not placed under liquidation in 1914 but became bankrupt the following year (CM 4 June 1915). In 1910 Ernest",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1994.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zk522640g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215947,
        "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-2002",
        "page_number": 246,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "180\n\nthemselves and slip outside into town, claiming neutral or non-combatant status. Many Europeans were able to stay out of internment or leave if they could: Professor Gordon King escaped with sufficient materials to try and restart a medical school in Free China. There were even escapes from Stanley Internment Camp, including of women civilians. Within the Prisoner of War Camps, there were very strong feelings that, while individuals might choose to escape, it was the duty of senior officers to remain with their men at a time of crisis. Escapes were of extremely limited military or strategic value. Even men like Col Newnham, Major Boxer, Lt Bush (who was a MTB officer) and others, whose sensitive work gave them more reason than most to need to get away, remained as prisoners. It was no failure of courage to choose to remain behind and help others. Newnham was later executed [Hon. Ed. - I think I prefer the term murdered.] and both Boxer and Bush imprisoned. Senior officers in camp expressed grave offence at the tone of the messages sent into camp. Nonetheless, the need to escape is a human trait, and the right of an individual to decide whether he was more useful in or out of camp was acknowledged. At least four parties of European servicemen escaped from POW camps in the first few weeks of internment.\n\nPerhaps the most publicised escape occurred on 9th January 1942 when three university officials left Sham Shui Po camp. Lindsay Ride, a physiologist, said he had planned the escape very early on and realised he needed a Chinese to facilitate it. Fortunately in camp he found Francis Lee Yan Piu, a resourceful clerk who had worked for him as a clerk. Lee arranged for the three Europeans to get Chinese clothing and to cross into the New Territories, where they laid low during the day, planning to explain to any Chinese who found them that they were Germans, as they feared the Chinese might be hostile. How being German made a difference is unclear. To their surprise, when they did encounter Chinese, the Chinese were not only delighted to help but appeared to know exactly what to do. These were guerrillas who had previously been in contact with someone with British connections, for they knew just where to bring the strangers. When the party arrived in Shaukwan (Kukong) over the border in China, they were met by MacEwan and Talan, members of ‘a mysterious Hong Kong organisation known colloquially as the Cloak and Dagger Boys, who had received what appeared to be some sort of guerrilla training formerly in Hong Kong,’xxiii",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    }
]