[
    {
        "id": 207377,
        "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": 145,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN MILITARY TALENT\n\n63 See Smith, \"Foreign-Training,” 83-86.\n\n64 Ward and other foreigners in the Chinese military service are studied in depth in Smith, Ward, Gordon and the Ever-Victorious Army.\n\n65 For basic Chinese documentation on Ward's career, see IWSM TC 4: 25-276; 4: 40a; 4; 51b-52; 5: 6b-8b; 5: 33-36b; 5: 51-52; 5: 54; 6: 2a-b; 6: 14b; 6: 17b-18; 6: 19b-20; 6: 30-31; 7; 47b-48b; 9; 3-4.\n\n66 IWSM TC 79: 11.\n\n67 Ibid., TC 4: 25-26; see also John K. Fairbank, \"The Early Treaty System,\" 270.\n\n68 IWSM, TC 5: 33-36b; 5: 51-52; 6: 19b-20; 6: 30a-b.\n\n69 Li Hung-chang, Letters to Friends, 1: 29.\n\n70 Foreign Relations of the United States (1888), part 1, 211-217.\n\n71 IWSM, TC 6: 17.\n\n72 Ibid., TC 9; 3b.\n\n73 Ibid., TC 9: 4.\n\n74 Ching Wu and Chung Ting, eds., Wu Hsu tang-an chung ti T'al-p'ing r'ien-kuo shih-liao hsüan-chi [Selections of historical materials concerning the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in Wu Hsu's archives] (Peking, 1958), 128-129,\n\n75 See Martin Ring, \"The Burgevine Case and Extrality in China, 1863-1866,\" Papers on China 20 (1969). In mid-1863, Prince Kung requested that Burgevine be expunged from the Chinese population register. See IWSM, TC 17: 136 and 20b.\n\n76 Ring, 145-146, 156 note 70.\n\n77 IWSM, TC 10: 46-49.\n\n78 Ibid., TC 10: 50a-b.\n\n79 Ibid., TC 15: 10b-11.\n\n80 I have discussed this combination in Ward, Gordon and the Ever Victorious Army. For some indications of Li's approach, consult J. O. P. Bland, Li Hung-chang (New York, 1917); I. C. Cheng, Chinese Sources for the Taiping Rebellion, 1850-1864 (Hong Kong, 1963), 120-132; Gordon Papers (British Museum), Ad. Mss. 53, 386, Robert Hart to Charles Gordon, October 7, 1863.\n\n81 See, for example, Feng Kuei-fen's Hsien-chih-r'ang chi [Collected essays from the Hall of Manifest Aspirations] (1876), 6: 46.\n\n82 IWSM, TC 22; 3b; 24: 29a-b; 25: 27b-28b; 27: 28-29. On Gordon's return to China in 1880 to assist Li during the so-called Ili Crisis, consult Immanuel C. Y. Hsü, \"Gordon in China, 1880,\" Pacific Historical Review 30.2 (May, 1964).\n\n83 See Kuo T'ing-i, Taiping t'ien-kuo shih-shih jih-chih (A daily record of historical events of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom] (Taipei, 1963), appendix, 165-167.\n\n84 See Smith, \"Foreign-Training\".\n\n85 See Mary Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T’ung-Chih Restoration, 1862-1874 (New York, 1967), 216; IWSM, TC 16; 11; 39; 22-29; 70: 38a-b and 41-42b; 85: 39a-b; 87; 31, 34-35.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208206,
        "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-1977",
        "page_number": 245,
        "title": "RAS-1977",
        "content_text": "NOTES AND QUERIES\n\n229\n\nConcerning the Taiping leader's relation with Gützlaff's Union, Clarke draws a conclusion which cannot be lightly accepted; i.e. \"it is more likely that Feng Yun-shan visited Gützlaff, and was possibly baptized by him in 1848” (p. 164). It appears that the only seemingly persuasive evidence that he could produce is an \"eyewitness\" who claimed to be a \"deserter\" from the Taiping ranks in Hunan. This man had been a Union member before being dismissed in 1851. He returned to Hong Kong in 1853 announcing publicly that he had joined the Taipings in Hunan and that Feng Yun Shan was pleased to recognize their old acquaintance (p. 165). He was appointed a low officer. Afterwards he deserted and returned to Hong Kong. The Register published his report on 27th September, 1853. (Carl T. Smith refers to the same report but mistakes Kwangsi for Hunan).\n\nIt can be easily shown that the whole report was a fabrication of the poorest quality, for everything he stated therein was false. In the first place, the deserter could never have seen Feng Yun-Shan in Hunan because Feng had died near Chuan-chow in Kwangsi in early June 1852, before the Taiping army entered Hunan. This fact was not known to the outside world until long afterwards, so that it is no wonder he made the false statement.\n\nA critical study of the full document reveals the following mistakes point by point.\n\n(1) Hung Hsiu-ch'üan was crowned Heavenly King ( ) and the new Kingdom was named Tai-Ping-Tien-Kuo (  ) right after the uprising, and Hung was not called Tai-ping wang'. No title of \"Royal Father\" was in use, and the Taiping army could not be identified with “Ming” ( ) which was only used by the Triads.\n\n(2) The Taiping army had not passed through Nan-ning of Kwangsi and Lo-ting of Kwangtung on its northward expedition, but marched directly north from Yung-an through Kweilin to Chuan-chow thereby crossing a mountain path to enter Hunan.\n\n(3) The total enrolment of the Taipings at that time was only some tens of thousands, and not several hundred thousands.\n\n(4) In the lowest echelon of the Taipings' military organizational system, there was no such rank as \"vexillary\" such as he claimed to have been appointed to by Feng, but there were four",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1977.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/np198x23n",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215997,
        "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": 296,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "230\n\nChinese Son, pp. 115-116). For a fuller account of Taiping demonology, see the article on “Taiping Tiânguó de 'móguï'” (“The ‘Devil' in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom\") by Wang Qingchéng in his book, Taiping Tianguó de lìshí hé sixiang (The History and Ideology of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom) (Běijing: Zhōnghuá Book Co., 1985), pp. 328 ff.\n\nFrom another perspective it must be remembered that Christian missionaries in the 19th century also regularly employed demonology to express their frustations with obstructive Qing officials, Chinese cultural attitudes, and opposing religious alternatives.\n\n46. Quoted in David Johnson, “Communication, Class and Consciousness in Late Imperial China,” p. 47,\n\n47. A helpful biographical account of Burns' career is written by I. Hamilton, \"Burns, William Chalmers\" in Nigel M. de S. Cameron, et. al., eds., Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), pp. 114-115.\n\n48. First published in Amoy (now Xiàmén) in 1853 and repeatedly published in various revisions in Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghai for many years, the copy of this work I have seen is entitled Tianlu lichéng túhuà (Pilgrim's Progress in the Local Language [Cantonese]) (City of Sheep [i.e. Canton]: Huishi litang, tenth year of the Tongzhi reign [i.e. 1871]).\n\n49. This Chinese conception of conversion has also been discussed in Lauren Pfister's \"A Transmitter but not a Creator.\"\n\n53\n\n50. According to Paul Reuter, international standards and institutions for settling treaty disputes were first put into place in Europe in the 1870s, and so the only formal way of advancing political agendas at this time was through war. This single and often overlooked historical fact manifestly shaped the whole situation, so that local Chinese residents could only consider the foreign military presence as a preamble to a full invasion by an even \"more foreign\" power—the Manchurian elite. Consult the initial pages of Paul Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties, trns. José Miro and Peter Haggenmacher (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1995).\n\nthan\n\n51. EMMC/MM (September 1857), p. 207, the quotations coming from the translation of a dictated document prepared by Ch'ea for Legge and Ho in May 1857.\n\n52. Legge himself had vomited twice from consuming some of the bread, one of the first to feel its effects because it was his habit to rise early and work on his project related to the Chinese Classics. See reports of the trial against Cheong Alum in the China Mail, a three-page \"Extra Edition,\" dated February 7, 1857, and Legge's own recollections in his public lecture (presented on November 5, 1872) entitled \"The Colony of Hong Kong.\" Legge's lecture was later published in the China Review 1:3 (1872-1873), pp. 163-176. An edited version of this essay was published as a centennial recollection in the Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 11 (1971), pp. 172-193. A helpful article revealing details about this event is \"Cheung Ah-lum: A Biographical Note”, Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 24 (1984), pp.\n\nand\n\n53. The last phrase is quoted in Helen Legge, James Legge: Missionary Scholar, p. 103, from an unknown letter she claims came from a missionary in",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    }
]