[ { "id": 207726, "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-1976", "page_number": 114, "title": "RAS-1976", "content_text": "A HAWAIIAN KING VISITS HONG KONG, 1881\n\n99\n\nkindly put me in communication with the British Minister in Rome so that I can command his good offices. . . . In the matter of decorations. Sir John ranks high among the Colonial Governors of England.\" And a Grand Cross of Kalakaua was later conferred on him.\n\nHong Kong Chinese merchants who traded with the people in Hawaii came to call on the King, and told him that their countrymen in his Kingdom appreciated the opportunities in the islands and were loyal to the Hawaiian government.\n\nAt the last State banquet in Hong Kong, as Armstrong reported, \"the lifeless air and heavy food made the King drowsy. The numerous receptions and late hours had deprived the King of sleep. His eyelids dropped . . . The Governor's wife was seated on the King's right, and I was seated next to her. I feared a nasal explosion if the King's doze should deepen, and devised ways of preventing it. It was a case of emergency. I whispered to the Governor's wife what my fears were, and asked her aid in preventing a loss of royal dignity. The clever wife of the Governor whispered to me, 'Will any special piece of music waken him up?' . . . She quietly called the majordomo, and in a minute the military band in the balcony filled the air with the music of 'Hawai'i Pono'i' (the Hawaiian National Anthem).\" The King woke up and the banquet ended.\n\nPage 100\n\nOn April 21, 1881, the Royal group left Hong Kong on the ship Killarney for Bangkok. Acting Consul General F. Bulkeley Johnson sent his report to W. L. Green, \"His Majesty the King and suite arrived here on the 12th [April] and left on the 21st April for Bangkok on a visit to the King of Siam.\"\n\nAnd the King and his party travelled to Singapore, Penang, Calcutta, Suez, Cairo, Rome, London, Brussels, Vienna, Paris, Madrid and Lisbon. King Kalakaua, in his July 12, 1881 letter from London, wrote of his meeting with Queen Victoria, “She came up to me and took my hand and then sat on a sofa asking me to sit down on a chair facing the sofa near her. She said that I was making a very long tour. I answered very fluently asked particularly where I learnt English as my accent was perfect.\" \n\nHomeward bound, the group crossed the Atlantic on the S. S. Celtic to New York. Then to Philadelphia, Washington, where he called on President Chester A. Arthur, and overland to California", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1976.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/hq382988q", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208943, "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": 105, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "SILK & SILVER: MACAU, MANILA TRADE\n\n73\n\nPhilippines was a colony within a colony, being financed and administered not from Madrid but by the government of Nueva España in Mexico. The islands produced little except small quantities of wax, ginger, cinnamon and gold, and the entire Spanish military and administrative establishment had therefore to be subsidised from Mexico. Apart from the missionaries, who were scattered fairly widely over the archipelago and later became the principal landowners in the Philippines, there were no Spanish settlements of any consequence outside Manila and the colony's sole economic—as opposed to spiritual—justification was the existence of Manila, which therefore grew rapidly and soon became the metropolis of the whole archipelago. Its excellent harbour facilities and its proximity to the rich rice-producing hinterland of central Luzon had made it a natural centre for government and commerce in the first place. By 1650 the population of the Spanish walled city of Intramuros and the suburbs where the Chinese and Filipinos lived was about 42,000.\n\nFor about 200 years the Manila galleon sailing between Manila and Acapulco in Mexico was the economic mainstay of the Spanish colony in the Philippines. The galleon trade was based on the exchange of Chinese silks, for which there was an almost limitless demand in Mexico, and Mexican silver, for which, as we have seen, there was an equally insatiable demand in China.\n\nTo the galleon trade the substantial Chinese immigration into the Philippines, which has significantly altered the ethnic composition of the Filipinos, must also be attributed. Already by the 1580s the Sangleys, as the Chinese settlers were called, had been assigned a separate quarter of the city—the Parian or market place—which soon became the commercial centre of Manila. The Chinese rapidly gained a virtual monopoly of retail business in the city and dominated the craft trades. The galleons also brought to the Philippines the clergy needed for the propagation of Christianity in the islands and many new crops and animals from the New World, including maize, cattle, goats and horses.18\n\nThe voyage across the Pacific was made almost annually from the foundation of Manila and in 1593 was regulated at two ships a year from Acapulco to Manila. This pattern was maintained more or less continuously right up till the end of Spanish rule in Mexico. Very large ships were used for the voyage; vessels of up to 1000 tons are recorded from 1614,19\n\nPage 105\n\nPage 106", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208945, "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": 107, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "SILK & SILVER: MACAU, MANILA TRADE\n\n75\n\nwealth thereby to act as bankers to the shippers. Profits were seldom less than 100 and often as much as 300 per cent. In return the galleons from Acapulco brought about 2 million silver pesos to the Philippines in an averagely good year.23\n\nIn 1580, with the death of the Cardinal King Henry of Portugal, the crowns of Spain and Portugal were united in the person of Philip II. In the Indies as well as in Europe, the Cortes of Tomar of 1581 guaranteed completely separate Portuguese and Spanish administrations and made direct trade between the Spanish and Portuguese possessions overseas illegal. Both in Manila and Mexico there were many who wished to engage in direct trade with China, but the Portuguese argued that this would ruin their commerce in the Far East and that Spain would also suffer, as all the silver from Nueva España would go to China and not to Spain or the Philippines.24 They also claimed it would mean the ruin of the Portuguese Jesuit missions in Japan, since, as a bishop in the Philippines remarked, \"all these affairs are moved by but one wheel, namely Macau.\"25\n\nDirect voyages were even made occasionally from Macau to Acapulco, though these caused great scandal in official circles. In 1589, D. João da Gama made the first crossing of the Pacific from Macau but on arrival in Acapulco was imprisoned and his goods impounded.\n\nRequests made by the leading citizens of Manila to make voyages to \"Japan, Macau and all other kingdoms and posts, whether Portuguese or pagan\" were not granted.26 The government in Madrid accepted that Japan lay within the Portuguese sphere of influence and that Macau had a monopoly of the Japan trade, while at the same time the Macaonese consistently thwarted all Manila's attempts to gain a trading base on the China coast which would have competed with theirs. The Cantonese officials did finally allow the Spanish to settle at a place they called El Pinal on the coast between Canton and Macau; its exact whereabouts are unknown. The Portuguese informed the Chinese that the Spaniards were \"robbers and insurrectionaries who raise revolts in the kingdoms they enter\" and then attempted to drive them out of El Pinal. Though this attack was staved off, El Pinal was nevertheless abandoned shortly afterwards.27\n\nBy about 1610 some direct, though intermittent, trade had developed between Nagasaki and Manila. Most of it was conducted in", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 208950, "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": 112, "title": "RAS-1980", "content_text": "80\n\nJOHN VILLIERS\n\n24 Investigations at Manila concerning trade with Macau. In E. H. Blair and J. A. Robertson (eds.). The Philippine Islands 1493-1803. 55 vols. Cleveland, Ohio, 1905. VIII. pp. 174-196.\n\n25 Miguel de Benevides, Bishop of Nueva Segovia to the King. Tulac, 17 May 1599. In Blair and Robertson, op cit. X. p. 193.\n\n26 Memorial to the Council. 26 July 1586. In Blair and Robertson, op cit. VI. p. 169.\n\n27 See Morga, op cit., pp. 136-149, Boxer, Fidalgos, pp. 46-47, Idem, Great Ship, pp. 61-62, Spate, op cit., pp. 163-164.\n\n28 Morga, op cit., p. 341 and Boxer, Great Ship, p. 73.\n\n29 Morga, op cit., pp. 341-342.\n\n30 Boxer, Great Ship, p. 111.\n\n31 D. Fernando de Silva to the King. 30 July 1626. In Boletin de la Sociedade Geografica de Madrid. XII. pp. 142 sqq. Quoted in Boxer, Great Ship, p. 144. For an account of Fort Zeelandia see F. R. J. Verhoeven, Bijdragen tot de oudere koloniale geschiedenis van het eiland Formosa. The Hague, 1930.\n\n32 Boxer, Great Ship, p. 117.\n\n33 On the Red Seal ships see Boxer. Christian century, pp. 261-267 and N. Peri. Essai sur les rélations du Japon et de l'Indochine aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Hanoi, 1923.\n\n34 Antonio Francisco Cardim S.J. Relação der gloriosa morte de quatro embaixadores portuguezes da cidade de Macao com sincoenta e sete Christãos de sua Companhia... a tres de Agosto de 1640. Lisbon, 1643. Quoted in Boxer, Great Ship, pp. 165-166.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 214470, "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-1998", "page_number": 328, "title": "RAS-1998", "content_text": "296\n\nOld Calabar. Niger Coast Protectorate. Sir Ralph concurred with Mr Read's division of the cannon. By letter of 8 September 1899 Mr Read informed Sir Ralph that three of the cannon had gone to the Tower. The Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities possesses an acknowledgement from the ordnance office of the Tower of London to the Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum, dated 17 July 1899, that three guns from Benin City had been received.\n\nNOTES\n\n(1) Upon which cf. Robert D. Smith's \"A 16th century Portuguese bronze breech-loading swivel gun,\" Militaria. Revista de Cultura Militar N.o 7, Madrid, 1995, pp.197-205 and my \"A 16th century Portuguese swivel gun in the British Museum,\" Lisbon, 1995, where I identified what the writing on this piece means.\n\n(2) Upon these cf. Howard L. Blackmore, The Armouries of the Tower of London. I. Ordnance, London, 1976, pp. 154, 170 and 171 (entries Nos 204, 238 and 239)\n\n(3) cf. page 154; No.204 of Howard L. Blackmore's catalogue (XIX.114 in the Royal Armouries). Mr. Blackmore states that it is an iron gun 3 feet 3 inches long. He portrays it in the catalogue and believes it was made in China in the 18th or early 19th century. He notes: \"An inscription in Chinese characters engraved by the trunnions refers to the weight of the gun and probably gives the names of the officials who supervised its manufacture; it is, however, too worn for accurate translation.” Often judgements of what can be read in old inscriptions are too hastily made. I do not know if that would be the case here. How this piece arrived in Benin City, and when, is presently anybody's guess.\n\n(4) A verb in the past tense, some four letters of which I cannot read, appears to be written here.", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1998.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/1g05n0794", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 215435, "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-2001", "page_number": 212, "title": "RAS-2001", "content_text": "161\n\nen España 1450-1600, Madrid, 1988, p. 58. Some of the more important writings on Latin American retable-façades, dealing also with those of the Jesuits, Dominicans and other religious orders, include, D. Angulo Iñiguez, E. Marco Dorta, M. J. Buschiazzo, Historia del Arte Hispano-Americano. II, pp. 427-38, 559-66, passim. J. A. Baird Jr., The Churches of Mexico, 1530-1810, University of California, 1962, pp. 22-3, 37-9, passim. A. Benavides, La Arquitectura en el Virreinato del Peru y en la Capitania General de Chile, Santiago, 1941, p. 54, passim. M. Collier, The Sagrario of Lorenzo Rodriguez, Yale University, 1973 (unpublished thesis). E. Harth-Terré, \"El Imafronte de la catedral de Lima”. Arquitecto Peruano, 1941.\n\n\"La obra de la Compañía de Jesus en la arquitectura virreinal peruana\", Mercurio Peruano, 1942. P. Kelemen, Baroque and Rococo in Latin America, New York, 1961, p. 123 passim. A. B. Louchheim, \"The church façades of Lorenzo Rodriguez: A focal point for the study of Mexican Churrigeresque architecture\", Inst. of Fine Arts, New York University, 1941 (unpublished M.A. thesis). G. Navarro, La iglesia de la Compañía de Quito, Madrid, 1930, R. C. Smith, A First History of Latin American Art, The 2nd volume, Washington, 1952, pp. 157-61. M. Toussaint, \"La catedra de Zacatecas y el arte del Virreinato\", Anales instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas, Mexico, 1947.\n\n“La Catedral de Mexico y el Sagrario Metropolitano, Mexico, 1948, H. E. Wethey, Colonial Architecture and Sculpture in Peru, Harvard University Press, 1949, pp. 53-6, 58-60, passim. B. Vargas-Lugo, La iglesia de Sta. Prisca de Taxco, Mexico, 1974.\n\n7\n\n$\n\nLate in the eighteenth century the fronts of Jesuit churches in Guanajuato, Tepotzotlan and elsewhere in Mexico display several of the most important retable-façades. M. Diaz, La Arquitectura de los jesuitas en Nueva España, Mexico, 1982, pp. 78-80. A. von Wuthenau, Tepotzotlan, Mexico, 1941.\n\nGran Enciclopedia Gallega, XXV, Santiago, 1974, pp. 138-9. Carmen Aznar, Summa Artis, XVII, pp. 106-8.\n\nSumma Artis, XVIII, pp. 96-7. F. Checa Goitia, Arquitectura Española del Siglo XVI, XI, Madrid, 1953, pp. 47-8.\n\nImportant carved retables were also produced in northern Europe during the fifteenth century, e.g., that of the Marienkirche, Lübeck, or that by an anonymous master of the School of Cologne, of c. 1434, in Frankfurt Cathedral. In Flemish altarpieces the theme is quite common. W. Kinkel, Der Dom zu Frankfurt am Main, München-Berlin, 1988, p. 18.\n\nPearson, M. N., The New Cambridge History of India: The Portuguese in India, Cambridge, 1987. New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 21, University of Chicago,", "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2001.txt", "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/zg651950g", "rank": 0 } ]