[
    {
        "id": 204563,
        "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-1963",
        "page_number": 44,
        "title": "RAS-1963",
        "content_text": "PRINTING IN CHINA\n\n39\n\n5. The Japanese monk Shuyei left China in 865, after a three-year visit, with a considerable collection of Buddhist rolls, two of them bearing titles indicating that they were printed.\n\n6. Calendars, dated 877, 882, and 887, have been found in Tunhuang.\n\n7. A printed charm was recently discovered in a T'ang tomb in Ch’êng-tu.\n\n8. In 883 the T'ang court fled to Shu and there (at Ch'êng-tu) one of the courtiers recorded seeing a variety of books printed on paper from wood-blocks for sale.\n\nFrom the next century on, printing becomes widespread. The whole Confucian canon in 130 volumes was printed in the years 932-953. The Buddhist canon in 5,048 rolls followed suit in 971-983 and many times thereafter. Manichean works were printed by the year 1000, if not a century earlier. The dynastic histories (史記, 漢書, 後漢書, 三國志, 晉書, and 滷唐書) were all printed between 994 and 1004. The Taoist canon, in 4,565 rolls, was printed in 1019. Besides this, several works were printed privately, such as the herbal in 973 and collections of essays and poetry. So, by the early years of the Sung, a large body of material was available in print. From about A.D. 1000 on, the publication of books in this form accelerated throughout China, and spread to the Khitan, Tangut, Jurchen, Uigur, and Mongol, and to Korea, Japan, and Annam. Printing by movable type too came into being (at least by the 1040's); also printing by metal blocks, as well as by wood-blocks.\n\nThe different classes engaged in printing included the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Confucian, and the secular. The first two groups produced a great number of texts in order to help them reach the masses. The last group, which was beginning to develop new philosophical ideas, also wanted to reach the people. The Sung government became worried about this; hence its interest in the printing of Confucian literature to propagate Confucianism among the general public. It was also considered an imperial prerogative. The printing of the canon was forbidden to private persons, and was entirely held in the hands of the government. Besides the printing done by the Academy, books were",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1963.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/4m90m091v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205101,
        "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": 57,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "52\n\nHERBERT FRANKE\n\nKhan of the Golden Horde (r. 1313-1340) is mentioned together with a very few notes on some nations which belonged to the Golden Horde, the Cherkess, the Alans and Ossetes, the Qipchaq Turks, the Russians (Wo-lo-ssu, from the Mongol Oros) and the Bulgars (Chinese Pu-li-a-êrh). Under the Qipchaq entry we find some data mentioning Russia and the Russians, such as Batus' conquest of Yeh-lieh-tsan which is the Chinese name for the ancient Russian town of Ryazan (1237), adorned with an Altaic prothetic vowel (like Oros from Ros, Rus). And in 1253 the Chinese annals record that a Mongol dignitary was dispatched to register the households of the Russians for taxation purposes. This was under the Great Khan Mongke (r. 1251-1259) under whom there was still a certain unity of command over the vast territories of the Mongol empire. But in later years the cohesion among the ulus was reduced more and more, and the Chinese official sources have little if anything to say of the West.\n\nThe multi-national auxiliaries of the Mongols included some Russians. These were mostly slaves, or prisoners of war, and repeatedly gifts to the Mongol rulers in China of Russian slaves are mentioned. In 1330 even a Russian guards regiment was established in Peking. There were other guards regiments in addition to the Mongol and Chinese soldiers at that time, consisting of Alans (i.e., Ossetes), Tanguts, Jurchen, Koreans, Qipchaq, and \"Western Regions People\", probably from Turkestan. And a Mohammedan (Hui-hui) artillery corps was equally a part of the Mongol armed forces. The Russians who served in the Peking guards regiment were given land north of Peking and settled there as military colonists. Their total number must have been something like 10,000 because the Yuan-shih mentions that figure in 1330. Other Russian troops were, together with Ossetes, dispatched to the Manchurian and Korean borders (Liao-yang Province), and to places in Northern China. As late as 1339 the Chancellor Bayan was appointed a commander of these Russian soldiers but after that date no more is heard of them. We do not know what became of these Europeans who had been a definitely Western element in the multi-national metropolis of Yüan China.\n\nIf official Chinese historiography as reflected in the dynastic annals did not display any great interest in the West, there are at least other fields where we find traces of broader world conception stimulated by a growing consciousness that the world did stretch",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205942,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 22,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "MORE ON THE YUNG-LO TA-TIEN\n\nL. CARRINGTON GOODRICH\n\nHalf a century ago Dr. Lionel Giles wrote an informative article in the New China Review (vol. II, April 1920) on the Yung-lo ta-tien (hereafter abbreviated as YLTT). Others too, both before and since, have contributed something to our knowledge about this great compilation. It appears time, however, for another sketch and assessment, now that the Veritable Records of the Ming dynasty (Ming shih-lu) and other original sources have been made available.\n\nThe YLTT was unquestionably the major collective literary enterprise of the Ming period (1368 - 1644). The proposal for the undertaking was officially made by the Grand Secretary Hsieh Chin (1369 - 1415) and others on July 19, 1403. Essentially the purpose was to try to make one complete thesaurus of existing literature. At this point in history the Chinese were just beginning to recover from not one but several devastating conflicts. In the tenth century part of north China had been lost to the Khitan, and both Chinese and non-Chinese peoples had warred over the rest. After the Sung (960+) had come into control of the south and central areas, the Jurchen in the twelfth century drove out the Khitan and bit off part of the Sung domain, to be followed in the thirteenth by the Mongols who conquered all of China in over half a century of campaigning. For seventy years there was peace, and then the Chinese began to throw off the Mongol yoke as well as struggle amongst themselves for mastery. From 1350 to 1380 war raged again, and many a center of culture suffered. It is a wonder that there was anything of value left. But this was not all. The prince of Yen (Chu Ti) at the turn of the century made two attempts to seize the throne from his nephew, and this too resulted in destruction, particularly in the north. He finally achieved success on the second, entering the capital, Nanking, in July 1402, and proclaimed himself emperor, with his reign title as Yung-lo, in January 1403. One may perhaps assign to the invention of printing, both by woodblock and (to a less extent) by movable type, the merit of preserving, through all these centuries from A.D. 900 on, at least part of the literary heritage of the Chinese people.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207362,
        "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-1975",
        "page_number": 130,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "122\n\nRICHARD J. SMITH\n\nDuring the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty, a great many Indians, Sogdians, Uighurs, Persians and even Europeans occupied key positions within the Chinese civil and military bureaucracy. Marco Polo is perhaps the most famous of these individuals, but he is by no means the most important.46 Foreigners enjoyed a distinct advantage in obtaining official posts during the Yuan period owing to the Mongol policy of discrimination against Han Chinese. As a result, the percentage of non-Chinese in the Yuan bureaucracy was much higher than it would later be in the other great “barbarian” dynasty, the Ch'ing. According to the Institutes of the Yuan Dynasty (Yuan tien-chang), in the early fourteenth century foreigners held more than one quarter of all provincial posts and almost one half of those at court. It may be assumed that the majority of foreign employees within the Yuan bureaucracy were military men.47\n\nThe multi-national armed forces of the Mongols included not only troops and officers from the \"Western Regions” (hsi-yu), but also guards regiments stationed at Peking comprised of Alans (i.e., Ossetes), Tanguts, Jurchen, Koreans, Qipchaq and even Russians. According to the Yuan History (Yuan-shih), the total number of Russians in the Peking guard in 1330 was about ten thousand men. These troops were given land north of Peking and settled there as military colonists. Among the various other foreign forces in the Mongol service was a Mohammedan (Hui-hui) artillery corps.48\n\nBy the time of the first Ming emperor, resentment over Yuan (i.e., barbarian) rule had produced a particularly strong anti-foreign reaction. Chu Yuan-chang, founder of the dynasty, was openly hostile toward barbarians and did his best to limit their influence.49 Yet even during Chu's reign (the Hung-wu period), foreigners served the Ming as military and naval commanders, imperial advisers, diplomatic officers and civil bureaucrats. Surprisingly, despite a strong bias against them, Mongols were employed extensively in China during the Ming—mostly in the army, but also in other areas of Chinese administration. Although Mongol soldiers were generally separated from Chinese soldiers, high military posts were not in fact closed to men of Mongol origin.50\n\nNor were Europeans excluded from positions of military responsibility. Indeed, the Jesuits, who gained influence at the Chinese capital in the seventeenth century by virtue of their scientific skills and, significantly, their willingness to conform to Chinese customs,51",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207376,
        "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-1975",
        "page_number": 144,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "136\n\nRICHARD J. SMITH\n\n46 See K. A. Wittfogel and Feng Chia-sheng, History of Chinese Society, Liao (907-1125) (Philadelphia, 1949), 8-10; also Igor de Rachewiltz, “Yeh-lü Ch'u-ts'ai (1189-1243); Buddhist Idealist and Confucian Statesman\" in Arthur F. Wright and Denis Twitchett, Confucian Personalities (Stanford, 1962).\n\n47 Wittfogel and Feng, 9.\n\n48 See Herbert Franke, \"Sino-Western Contacts under the Mongol Empire,” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 6 (1966), 52.\n\n49 Kuwabara, 96-99.\n\n50 See Henry Serruys, \"Mongols Ennobled during the Early Ming,” HIAS, 22 (1959); also Serruys, \"Landgrants to the Mongols in China: 1400-1460,” Monumenta Serica, 25 (1966), especially 394. As had been the case with other barbarians in China's past, the use of Mongol and Jurched troops in the Ming could be a liability as well as an asset. See Serruys, \"Sino-Jürched Relations During the Yung-Lo Period (1403-1424),” Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen (Weisbaden, 1955); 67-68, 71.\n\n51 See the summary discussion in Immanuel C. Y. Hsü, The Rise of Modern China (London and Toronto, 1975), 138-139; also George L. Harris, \"The Mission of Matteo Ricci, S.J.: A Case Study of an Effort at Guided Culture Change in China in the Sixteenth Century,” Monumenta Serica, 25 (1966).\n\n52 James B. Parsons, Peasant Rebellions of the Late Ming Dynasty (Tucson, 1970), 129.\n\n53 C. R. Boxer, \"Portuguese Military Expeditions in Aid of the Mings Against the Manchus, 1621-1647,\" T'ien-Hsia Monthly, VII (1938); S. Y. Teng and John K. Fairbank, China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839-1923 (New York, 1970), 13; North-China Herald, January 10, 1852. Boxer, 32, offers the explanation that the expedition was undermined by Cantonese who feared that the Portuguese, if successful, would be granted extended trading rights, while the North-China Herald suggests that when the men reached Nan-ch'ang they were ordered to return because \"the contemptible figure they presented completely disappointed expectation.\" It is probable that each of these interpretations has a measure of validity.\n\n54 Serruys, \"Were the Ming,” 136.\n\n55 Boxer, 35.\n\n56 Wills, Guns, Pepper and Parleys, especially chapter 2; Fu Lo-shu, A Documentary Chronicle of Sino-Western Relations (1644-1820) (Tucson, 1966), I: 32-33, 58; Teng and Fairbank, 34.\n\n57 The Ch'ing did, however, ally with the Russians against the Dzungars during the K'ang-hsi period and the Ch'ien-lung emperor did make good use of Western cannon (Hsi-yang p'ao) in his famous campaigns. See, for example, IWSM, TC 9: 30a-b; also Teng and Fairbank, 34; Swisher, 697.\n\n58 See Immanuel C. Y. Hsü, \"Russia's Special Position in China during the Early Ch'ing Period,\" Slavic Review, 13.4 (December, 1964).\n\n59 Chinese Repository 11: 64; Swisher, 98-99.\n\n60 See Masataka Banno, China and the West, 1858-1861 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), especially 45-53, 207-209; Swisher, 683-697.\n\n61 See, for example, IWSM TC 22: 11b-13b; also Richard J. Smith, \"Foreign-Training and China's Self-Strengthening: The Case of Feng-huang-shan, 1864-1873,” Modern Asian Studies, 10.12 (1976).\n\n62 For the use of this expression (or a variant) as late as the 1890's see WCSL 101: 9 and 129; 16.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "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
    }
]