[
    {
        "id": 204851,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 154,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "BOOK REVIEWS\n\n129\n\nof the artist, is well known. It is impossible to reconcile this story with the statement, made without citation from any authority and no supporting evidence, that \"Mrs. Chinnery did in fact follow him to Canton, but when she attempted to land she was not permitted to do so and was obliged to stay aboard ship, where she caught smallpox and died\". If the name of the ship, the date, or any reference to the Canton newspapers or to the records of the English graveyard at Macao can be produced in support, this event will be new history. Without proof, it must be denied.\n\n<<\n\n•\n\n+\n\nAll will agree with the statement without question, he (Chinnery) stands alone for his work on the China Coast. Here he had no peer\". However, it is curious that no other European artist who visited the Pearl River area is mentioned by name. True \"none stayed for very long\". Yet they were sound painters. The success of Webber, artist to the Cook Expedition, the Daniell brothers, and Borget all prior to Chinnery—as illustrators of travel books, undoubtedly spurred Chinnery in his efforts to have his pictures reproduced.\n\n+\n\nWhile the engraving of Morrison after Chinnery is noted, the Sartain stipple of Howqua and the pleasant colored lithograph of the Praya Grande at Macao by Reinagle and Hullmandel, both after Chinnery, are not mentioned.\n\nFour signatures of Chinnery are shown. They vary quite widely, but this fact is overlooked apparently, and there is no attempt to reconcile or evaluate.7\n\nIn speaking of Lamqua, the Chinese painter, it is stated “In 1850 he consigned a group of portraits of Chinese merchants to Boston, for exhibition at the Atheneum\". Compare this with the actual facts. Five portraits of Chinese merchants by Lamqua were exhibited in the Boston Athenaeum (please, we \"Proprietors” of this private library are sensitive about correct spelling) in 1850. They were the property of Augustine Heard, partner in Russell & Co., and were distributed under his will. They are all in existence\n\nPage 48.\n\n5 Page 20.\n\n6 Page 38.\n\n* Page 57, Plates 6, 7 & 24 top.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204852,
        "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-1964",
        "page_number": 155,
        "title": "RAS-1964",
        "content_text": "130\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\ntoday. This information negates the subsequent statement \"The only specifically recorded Lamqua portrait in an American collection is that of Dr. Peter Parker\n\n+\n\n8\n\nA bibliography omitting nearly 50% of the last published bibliography will startle any serious scholar. It may be possible to write about Chinnery without consulting E. W. Bovil's articles in Notes and Queries and about the Opium War without using Maurice Collis' Foreign Mud with its Chinnery illustrations, but it is not recommended practice. W. C. Hunter, partner in Russell & Co., is quoted in the text, but both of his books The Fan-Kwae in Canton before Treaty Days 1825-1844 and Bits of Old China with its chapter on Chinnery, are omitted from the list. Any modern researcher will want to check the Jardine-Matheson papers in Cambridge, England. They are not mentioned here. There is a list of plates, but no general index.\n\nIn the China section of photographs, there are 57 oils, water-colors, and drawings captioned as by Chinnery, also 10 so-called \"School of Chinnery\", 28 port scenes, all called \"School\", and 2 miscellaneous. Authentication of any artist's work, particularly if unsigned, is a matter of opinion. When in doubt, it is far sounder to \"attribute\" and the best museums follow this custom. In recent months, a world expert on Chinnery and your reviewer considered together these 57 pictures and questioned or denied 21 of them, a substantial percentage.\n\n+ •\n\nIn 1953 the statement was made, and remains unchallenged, it is obvious that the Hong Kong Chinnery is the only portrait of Howqua that may be said to have been painted in a truly accomplished Western manner such as one would expect from the brush of Chinnery. The other portraits of Howqua, in spite of their long-standing attribution to Chinnery, almost without exception speak of Western art with a strong Cantonese accent\". There is no photograph of the Chinnery portrait of Howqua in Hong Kong in this book a significant omission. However, there are three portraits of Howqua11- all obviously by Chinese\n\n* Page 39.\n\n9 Arts Council Catalogue 1957.\n\n10 Albert Ten Eyck Gardner-The Art Quarterly, Winter 1953\n\n11 Plate 39 top and bottom, Plate 40 top.\n\n10",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1964.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/qz20zx09r",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 212483,
        "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-1991",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "RAS-1991",
        "content_text": "17\n\nthe 550 specified wills, 67 of the testators were at the time absent from Hong Kong, being only 12.2%. Mostly they were in Canton and Macau and nearly all of them were in retirement or were there for medical reasons. 19 Table 2 shows Hong Kong merchants held properties, mainly landed properties, not only in Hong Kong, but also in Canton, Macau and Shanghai as well as other parts of China.\n\nTable 2\n\nProperties Held by Hong Kong Merchants in China, 1850-1906\n\n  \n    \n    1850-70\n    1871-80\n    1881-90\n    1891-1900\n    1901-1906\n  \n  \n    Canton\n    3(4)\n    9(11)\n    7(8)\n    14(14)\n    \n  \n  \n    Macau\n    1\n    1(1)\n    \n    5(?)\n    \n  \n  \n    Shanghai\n    \n    1(1)\n    \n    \n    \n  \n  \n    Rest of China\n    1(2)\n    \n    \n    [(?)\n    \n  \n  \n    Total\n    1\n    في\n    3\n    9\n    10\n    20\n  \n\nnote:( ) number of places where landed properties located Source: HKRS#144\n\nHong Kong-Canton-Shanghai Network\n\nAfter 1842, British commercial interests on the Chinese coast were dually extended from Canton to Hong Kong and Shanghai. The newly opened port in Shanghai was flocked to by Cantonese merchants, compradors and foreign employees with Western merchants.20 Though Shanghai was opened for trade in 1843, the real development of Shanghai began during the 1850s. Cantonese emigrants came to Shanghai with the hope of making a fortune from foreign trade, particularly in the 1850s when the Taiping Rebellion disrupted trade in South China. Cantonese merchants had early established a presence in Shanghai. The Cantonese guild was established as early as 1710. As a scholar said, Cantonese merchants were a more national rather than a regional type. After 1843, they mostly came from Zhongshan prefecture and the Hong Kong Macau area, a region within the Pearl River estuary. Shanghai and Hong Kong were cities of immigrants, the number of outsiders surpassed the natives. Statistics confirm this impression. In 1885 immigrants represented some 85 percent of Shanghai's population.\n\nThe first Shanghai taotai after the Opium War, Wu Jianzhang, was a Zhongshan native who came from the merchant family of Samqua of",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1991.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/k356gt84j",
        "rank": 0
    }
]