[ { "id": 208853, "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-1980", "page_number": 15, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "# CONTENTS\n\nPage\n\nviii\n\nPresident's Report\n\nx\n\nTREASURER'S REPORT\n\nxvi\n\nLIBRARIAN'S REPORT\n\nxviii\n\nARTICLES :\n\n1\n\nChinese monasteries, temples, shrines and altars in Hong Kong and Macau - KEITH G. STEVENS\n\n34\n\nPersistence and preservation of Hakka culture in an urban situation : a preliminary study of the voluntary association of the Waichow Hakka in Hong Kong - JIANN HSIEH\n\n54\n\nThe Hong Kong riots of October 1884: evidence for Chinese nationalism? - Lewis M. CHERE\n\n66\n\nSilk and silver: Macau, Manila and Trade in the China seas in the sixteenth century - JOHN VILLIERS\n\n81\n\nFung Shui, an intrinsic way of environmental design, illustrated by the case of Kat Hing Wai in the New Territories of Hong Kong - David Lung\n\n93\n\nSymbolism of the new light - JULIAN F. PAS\n\n116\n\nRediscovering our social and cultural heritage in the New Territories - BARBARA E. Ward\n\n125\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES:\n\nA Hakka wedding in Hong Kong - VALERIE Garrett\n\n129\n\nChina and the Beholder - HOLMES WELCH\n\n133\n\nChinese religious involvement with Islam - KEITH STEVENS\n\n134\n\nMore about the Tung Lung fort - ANTHONY SIU\n\n136\n\nDistribution of temples on Lantau Island - ANTHONY SIU\n\n139\n\nThe Kowloon walled city - ANTHONY SIU\n\n141\n\nTuen Mun from Chinese historical records - ANTHONY SIU\n\n145\n\nIs Chun Fa Lok the old name for Tsing Yi — ANTHONY SIU\n\nPage 15\n\nPage 16", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208924, "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-1980", "page_number": 86, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "THE HONG KONG RIOTS OF OCTOBER 1884: EVIDENCE FOR CHINESE NATIONALISM?\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE*\n\nEven though its importance for China's relations with the Western Powers, and for the development of the European empires in general, is very great the Sino-French War has not attracted much scholarly attention. In the field of the development of Chinese Nationalism alone a great deal of potential evidence remains to be examined from the incidents which arose out of the conflict. Nowhere is that more the case than in the history of Hong Kong in the period of the 1880's. The reactions of the Chinese community in Hong Kong, where the legendary influence of malevolent mandarins could only be indirectly applied—if at all—could provide very good examples of the emergence of genuine Chinese anti-imperialist nationalism as opposed to the earlier xenophobic opposition to foreigners in general. Yet that evidence remains unstudied and almost completely unknown. Even those scholars who have concerned themselves with the history of Hong Kong—a lamentably small group—have not found the question of any great interest; possibly because they were concerned with other, very limited, aspects of Hong Kong's development.\n\nThere is a distressing lack of source material available outside Hong Kong for scholars interested in trying to integrate developments in the Crown Colony into the overall picture of developments on the China Coast. This is especially true for the period of the Sino-French War. The most readily available general history of Hong Kong, that of G. B. Endacott,1 devotes barely two pages to the riots of 1884, and does not give any indication of the sources used. Perhaps the scope of the problem can be better appreciated if the sentiments of G. M. Sayer in the foreword to his father's book are repeated: \"The work is not of great historical importance; indeed little of significance occurred during the period to excite the interest of anyone outside Hong Kong.\" If those who have concerned themselves with the writing of the history of Hong Kong\n\n* Dr. Chere is Assistant Professor of History, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208926, "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-1980", "page_number": 88, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "56\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE\n\nevents of 1884. In this category would be Chinese language newspapers, the records of the court proceedings against the native newspapers and rioters, and whatever private records, diaries or papers which might have survived from that time. Because these materials are not available outside Hong Kong it is the purpose of this article to raise the question of what did happen in the Colony in 1884 in the hopes that those scholars who do have access to the winds of materials necessary to answer the question will be made aware of the importance of having those answers. Because a study of the question cannot help but advance understanding of Chinese history in the 1880's—not to mention the illumination it could provide for the history of Hong Kong itself—I have attempted to provide an outline here of what the question entails, and what little is known about it.\n\nHong Kong occupied a position in the events of the Sino-French War which was unique even for the ports of the China Coast. Unlike Treaty Ports such as Canton or Shanghai, Hong Kong was not even technically Chinese territory. Though Shanghai may have been effectively controlled by the representatives of the foreign community sitting on the city council, the city was still Chinese territory and the problems it experienced during the Sino-French War were largely due to that fact. Hong Kong was formally a possession of a neutral power. As such, most of its problems arising from the war were those which resulted from differing French, Chinese and British positions on the obligations of a neutral in an undeclared war. However, Hong Kong's overwhelming majority of Chinese residents, most of them adult male workers whose families were still living in their home villages in the Southern Provinces of China, presented a problem even more complex than those arising from the city's neutrality.\n\nThe reactions of those Chinese residents to the Sino-French conflict could be vital to an understanding of the development of nationalism in China. In Hong Kong the legendary influence of anti-foreign mandarins, which was so frequently blamed for anti-foreign feeling among the Chinese populations in the Treaty Ports, could only be indirectly applied—if at all. Even then many of the European accounts of what happened in the Colony in 1884 attempted to find outside influences, meaning the mandarins, to hold responsible for Hong Kong's troubles.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208928, "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-1980", "page_number": 90, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "58 \n\nLEWIS M. CHERE \n\nand recognized in later periods? As in so many cases of this sort, closer examination of the events leads to the conclusion that it may have been both. \n\nWhat little evidence is available at this distance points to a popular nationalistic outbreak against the French, encouraged by the activities of the Imperial authorities at Canton. There is also reason to believe that the old anti-foreignism so frequently pointed to among the coastal Chinese also had some role in the affair. Some local Chinese leadership groups, like the Tung Wah, may also have tried to make use of the incident to enhance their own position vis-à-vis the colonial administration. \n\nThe troubles of September and October 1884 were set off by two events in other parts of the China Coast. China and France had been very close to an open break over the suzerainty of Annam and the occupation of Tongking since early in 1883. When the Chinese appeared to have violated a May 1884 agreement between Li Hung-chang and Captain Ernest Fournier of the French Navy, France presented China with a series of ultimatums in June and July demanding compensation for French deaths incurred in the incident. Since the Chinese believed that it was the French who had violated the agreement they naturally were not inclined to sub-mit to the French demands.9 \n\nFrance, determined to enforce what she considered her just demands, issued one last ultimatum in August. When Peking refused to give in, the French Asiatic Squadron under Admiral Courbet, which was anchored at Foochow opposite a Chinese fleet and the shipyard, opened fire on August 22. The Chinese Foochow Fleet was utterly destroyed with much loss of life. The Shipyard was severely damaged, and the forts along the Min River were taken and destroyed as the French went back downstream. \n\nIn the competition among the governors and viceroys of the coastal provinces to demonstrate their patriotism in the furor that followed the Foochow incident, Chang Chih-tung, newly appointed Viceroy of the Two Kwangs; Peng Yü-lin, Imperial Commissioner for the Coastal Defenses of Kwangtung; and Ni Wan-yuh, Governor of Kwangtung, issued a proclamation calling on Chinese in Singapore, Penang and Vietnam (interestingly enough they did not mention Hong Kong) to sink French ships, or sell them tainted provisions. \n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208930, "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-1980", "page_number": 92, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "60\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE\n\never nationality. It was this action which the Tsungli Yamen blamed for the troubles in Hong Kong when they refused to order Chang Chih-tung to republish the decree of censure. By October 3 trade was at a standstill and serious damage to the Colony's economy was feared. Newspaper accounts of the strike were at pains to point out that the boatmen really wanted to work but were being prevented by threats made against their family members still living in Kwangtung. A report of October 1 stated that there were three or four wei-yuen from Canton then in Hong Kong to support the boycott.15 The boatmen were supposedly even ready to return to work without a guarantee of their right to boycott French ships, but dared not do so. The theme of the unknown, but influential outside agitator is very common in the official and unofficial accounts of the troubles, just as it is in similar situations around the world in more modern times. It would be surprising if the officials and reporters of 1884 had not believed something of that nature to be true.\n\nOn October 3 the boatmen were ready to return to work. Though their reasons were probably economic, the newspapers do not support the claim made later by Charles Norman that the strike was broken by an offer to pay the Chinese double for working the French ships.16 No such offer was recorded, and the accounts quite plainly indicate that the boatmen were not prepared to return to work for the French.\n\nThough the boatmen were ready to return to work, opinion among their fellow Chinese ashore was against anything of the sort. Groups of cargo coolies tried to prevent the boatmen from returning to work. They also spread the strike to the chair-carriers and ricksha men. Violence broke out when the police attempted to stop the cargo coolies from harassing the boatmen. It was at this point that foreigners in general, rather than just Frenchmen, came under attack. A few traditional-style placards were seen denouncing foreigners in general. A very few appeared calling for the torching of the town. Most of the foreigners who were in jeopardy happened to have been unfortunate enough, or ignorant enough, to have gotten themselves into the wrong place at the wrong time and were swept up in the general disturbance,17\n\nIn an attempt to prevent further outbreaks the colonial administration banned the annual procession of the Feast of the Lanterns,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208932, "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-1980", "page_number": 94, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "62\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE\n\napplied that system's principles to their native charges. By the 12th October the police had collected over five thousand weapons. Among the collection of swords, spears and assorted other traditional weapons there were quite a few firearms, including a case of Winchester carbines. It should be pointed out that the rioters of the 3rd had not used anything in the line of weapons beyond the usual sticks, stones, bricks and assorted other missiles. By the 12th the city was considered calm and safe enough for the troops to return to their barracks.\n\nIn spite of his all-too-evident prejudice against the Chinese, the editor of the Daily Press was having his doubts about the nature of the disturbances.20 He was not prepared to call them anti-foreign, but he was not sure exactly what they were. Nationalism as we think of it was still a new concept in 1884, and most Europeans had difficulty associating the concept with non-European peoples, especially the Chinese. For a century Europeans on the China Coast had referred to the Chinese resistance to foreign influences as xenophobia encouraged by the Confucian literati. When they realized that that concept would no longer adequately describe what they were seeing among the Chinese it is no wonder that they might have had difficulty in thinking of it in terms of nationalism. To them nationalism implied a degree of sophistication which did not square with their preferred view of China and the Chinese. We should, therefore, not be surprised that the editor did not recognize what might have been early signs of nationalism among the Chinese. It is notable that he was prepared to admit that the old definitions and explanations no longer applied to the situation as he saw it developing. Even the usual rumors of outside agitators no longer seemed to correspond to the facts and he was flexible enough to admit that.21\n\nBy October 21 the troubles were unquestionably over and the city was getting back to its business. Police guards were no longer needed for the boatmen. When Tam Yik Kiu, editor of the Wah Tse Yat Po, was tried for having published Chang's proclamation the case was thrown out of court on the 24th. The editor of the Daily Press hailed the failure of the action as a victory for freedom of the press.\n\n22\n\nThough the disturbances were over rather quickly one late incident could lead one to believe that perhaps nationalism was a", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208934, "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-1980", "page_number": 96, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "64\n\nLEWIS M. CHERE\n\nIt is because these questions cannot be answered yet, and because they are so significant for a better understanding of the development of Chinese nationalism, and the history of the European presence on the China Coast, that this article has been written. In answering these questions I believe that scholars of Hong Kong's history will be performing a service for all scholars of Chinese History, as well as proving that events in Hong Kong really have been of much more significance than they have previously been given credit for.\n\nNOTES\n\n1 G. B. Endacott, A History of Hong Kong, 2nd ed. (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 208-9.\n\n2 Geoffrey Robley Sayer, Hong Kong, 1862-1919: Years of Discretion ed., with additional notes by D. M. Emrys Evans (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1975).\n\n*\n\n* Endacott, p. 209.\n\n4 James Hayes, \"A Short History of Military Volunteers in Hong Kong,\" Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 11 (1971): 151-71.\n\n* James William Norton-Kyshe, The History of the Laws and Courts of Hongkong. 2 vols. (London: T. F. Unwin, 1898), 2:376-67.\n\n+ +\n\nFor the problems which Britain's involvement caused her, see my forthcoming \"Great Britain and the Sino-French War: The Problems of an Involved Neutral, 1883-1885\", Selected Papers, The Western Conference of the Association for Asian Studies, 1980.\n\n* See the Census of Hong Kong for 3rd April, 1881, published in the Hongkong Government Gazette, 11th June 1881. There were then 91,452 men out of a total Chinese population of 150,690.\n\n• Endacott, p. 209; Parkes to Granville, no. 226 October 15, 1884, Great Britain. Public Records Office. FO 227/2715, pp. 12-15.\n\n• For more complete information on the Sino-French War see: Lloyd E. Eastman, Throne and Mandarins: China's Search for a Policy During the Sino-French Controversy, 1880-1885 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1967); Henry McAleavy, Black Flags in Vietnam: the Story of a Chinese Intervention (New York: Macmillan, 1968), Ella S. Laffey, \"Relations Between Chinese Provincial Officials and the Black Flag Army, 1883-1885,\" (PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1971); or my own \"The Diplomacy of the Sino-French War (1883-1885): Finding a Way Out of an Unwanted, Undeclared War,\" (PhD dissertation, Washington State University, 1978).\n\n10 A translated copy of the poison proclamation is in FO 227/2714, pp. 35-7; for Chang's defense of it see FO 227/2715, pp. 10-12.\n\n11 North China Herald, October 8, 1884, reprints an account from the Straits Times.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 209462, "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": 119, "title": "RAS-1982", "content_text": "97\n\n* For Fang Han-ch'i, see Note 10. Li Ming-jen\n\n\"I-pa-ssu nien Hsiang-kang pa-kung yün-tung\" (\"The Strike in Hong Kong in 1884), Li-shih yen-chiu (Historical Studies), 1958:3 (March, 1958) 89-90.\n\nLloyd E. Eastman, \"The Kwangtung anti-foreign disturbances during the Sino-French War\", Papers on China, 13 (1959) 1-31,\n\nLewis M. Chere, \"The Hong Kong Riots of October 1884: Evidence for Chinese Nationalism\", JHKBRAS, Vol. 20 (1980), p. 54.\n\n* Chinese Prisoners, Papers respecting the confinement and trial of Chinese prisoners in Hong Kong 1857 (155, Sess. 2) XLIII, Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers (Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1971) Vol. 24: China, pp. 151-188. For a narration of the event see James Pope-Hennessy, Half Crown Colony: A Hong Kong Note Book (London: Jonathan Cape, 1969), pp. 55-58.\n\nMarsh to Parkes, 4th October, 1884, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., 2nd February, 1885: CO129/224. Marsh to Parkes, 6th October, 1884, Telegram enclosed in F.O. to C.O., 9th December, 1884: CO129/219.\n\nTsungli Yamen to Parkes, 10th October, 1884, enclosed in F.O. to C.O., 13th December, 1884; ibid.\n\n**For Paou-chong, see Ordinance No. 13 of 1844; for Tepo, see Ordinance No. 3 of 1853; for the Registrar-General, see Ordinance No. 7 of 1846. The Registrar-General's duties were redefined by Ordinance No. 6 of 1857, and again by Ordinance No. 8 of 1858.\n\nFor the Chinese elite, see Carl Smith's works cited in Note No. 59. See also his \"An Early Hong Kong Success Story: Wei Akwong, the Beggar Boy\", Chung Chi Bulletin No. 45 (December 1968), pp. 9-14; \"English-educated Chinese Elites in Nineteenth Century Hong Kong\", Symposium Paper, Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, (November 1972), pp. 65-96; and H.J. Lethbridge, \"A Chinese Association in Hong Kong: the Tung Wah\", \"The Evolution of a Chinese Voluntary Association in Hong Kong: The Po Leung Kuk\" and \"The District Watch Committee: The Chinese Executive Council of Hong Kong?\" in his Hong Kong: Stability and Change.\n\n**Marianne Bastid, \"The Social Context of Reform” in Paul A. Cohen and John E. Schrecker, ed., Reform in Nineteenth Century China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), pp. 117-127; 118.\n\nLi Tak Cheong was a director in 1872, chairman in 1883, and a hip-li in 1873 and 1884. Ho Amei was chairman in 1882 and a hip-li in 1883. Leong On was a founding chairman, and chairman again in 1877 and 1887, and was a hip-li in 1872, 1878 and 1888.\n\n**Ho Kai's father, Ho Fuk Tong and his brother-in-law Wu T'ing-fang were both founding chi-shi.\n\nSee Note No. 34.\n\nMarsh to Derby, 24th March, 1886, Despatch No. 91: CO129/225.\n\n**This refers to a meeting called by Europeans in Hong Kong to discuss the rise of crime which they believed resulted from the leniency of the new Governor Hennessy. Some of the Chinese leaders however supported him and the meeting developed into a confrontation between Europeans and Chinese residents in Hong Kong. See James Pope-Hennessy, Verandah (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.), pp. 203-205. This was also fully reported in the Daily Press and China Mail throughout October 1878.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 211832, "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-1989", "page_number": 247, "title": "RAS-1989", "content_text": "222\n\nthe stage properties were unexceptionable\". (NCH 22.10.1864)\n\n15,10-21. 10. 1864\n\nH.J. BYRON: \"Fra Diavolo\" (1858)\n\nT: Burlesque burletta (1 act)\n\nH.J. BYRON: \"The Maid and the Magpie\n\nT: Burlesque burletta (1 act), and other pieces.\n\nC: Lewis A.D.C.\n\nTh: N.N. (I\n\nR: NCH 22,10,1864\n\n17.10.1864 (Mon)\n\nConcert by Mr. Desvachez (violin) and some local amateurs\n\nTh: Shanghai Club\n\nR: Another musical evening was given by Mr. DESVACHEZ in the recently completed Shanghai Club building. On this occasion \"the audience was numerous and seemed to fully appreciate M. DESVACHEZ's musical talents”. (NCH 22.10.1864)\n\n22.10.-28. 10. 1864\n\nH.J. BYRON: \"The Bride of Abydos\" (1858)\n\nT: Burlesque extravaganza (1 act)\n\nN.N.: \"The Lady of Lyons”, (No author mentioned, so it may have been original play by Lytton or the burlesque by H.J. Byron (1868)), and other pieces.\n\nC: Lewis A.D.C.\n\nTh: N.N. (l\n\nR: For some actors of the Lewis troupe the strains of appearing every evening on the stage had become too much, for in the Herald it was \"regretted that in thus making strenuous efforts to afford satisfaction to their audiences, two of the most promising members of the Company have become so severely indisposed as to be unable for some time to appear in public\" (NCH 29.10.1864).\n\n5.11.1864 (Sat) (See: Theatrical Advertisement, No. 10)\n\nAmateur concert in aid of the repair fund of the \"Hongque Free Episcopal Church”, the \"Shanghai Vocal Quartette Club\" and Mr. Marquis Chisholm, piano, Programme:\n\n1. V. BELLINI: \"La Sonnambula\", duet (presumably 'Prendi l'anel ti dono' from act I) arranged for piano and harmonium by David Hermann ENGEL (1816-1877)\n\n2. Sir Henry BISHOP: \"Foresters sound the cheerful horn\" (glee)\n\n3. Marquis CHISHOLM: \"Japanese Fantasia”\n\n4. MULLER: \"Maying\" (sic; quartet)\n\n5. Ballad \"Arleen Aroom”\n\n6. Philipp Friedrich SILCHER (1799-1860): \"The Miller's Daughter” (quartet)\n\n7. G. VERDI: \"Rigoletto\", duet ('E il sol dell' anima', act I; 'Piangi, fanciulla', act I), arranged for piano by John George CALLCOT (1821-1895)\n\n8. Friedrich Wilhelm KÜCKEN (1810-1882): **Soldier's Love\" (glee)\n\n9. Valentin Eduard BECKER (1814-1890); \"Cheer Up Companions” (choral march)\n\n10. RADETSKA: \"There's music in the air\" (quartet)\n\n11. G. DONIZETTI: \"Lucrezia Borgia\", arrangement for flute and piano by JAMES\n\n12. Heinrich WERNER (1800-1833): \"War Song\" (glee)\n\n13. CAXTON: \"Breathe soft, ye winds\"\n\n14. William HORSLEY (and not F. Mendelssohn as stated in the advertisement): **By Celia's Arbour\" (song)\n\n15. Sir Henry BISHOP: \"Sleep gentle lady\" (glee)\n\n16. William Vincent WALLACE (1813-1865): \"Lurine\", duet arranged for piano and", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1989.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/8336pm92h", "rank": 0 } ]