天國與洪仁玕

2014

Christian Tracts) greatly influenced Hong Xiuquan, but very little has been written on the role of Liang’s work. The main reason is that even though hundreds of copies were distributed in the early nineteenth century, only four survived the destruction which followed the failure of the Taiping Movement. This dissertation therefore explores the extent of the Christian influence of Liang’s nine tracts on Hong and the Taiping Movement. This study begins with an introduction to China in the nineteenth century and the early missions of western countries in China. The second chapter focuses on the life and work of Liang. His religious background was in Confucianism and Buddhism, but when he encountered Robert Morrison and William Milne, he identified with Christianity. The third chapter discusses the story of Hong especially examining Hong’s acquisition of Liang’s Quanshi liangyan and Hong’s revelatory dream, both of which serve as motives for the establishment of the Society of God Worsh...

2002

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. ANTHONY DEBLASI University at Albany T HE intellectual history of China in the late eighth and early ninth centuries has usually been written in terms of the rise and fall of Han Yu's Ancient Style (guwen 9ijZ) movement.1 The appearance of Han Yu and his circle in the 790s was certainly an important milestone in China's philosophical development. Indeed, Han Yu so captivated later scholars with his principled criticism, literary skill, and rhetorical flourish that his view has continued to determine the way modern scholars understand the dynamics of the debates during his time. In the standard interpretation, Han Yu represents a critique of a contemporary literary culture that was more interested in showy literary displays than in the serious problem of declining morals. Because Han expressed his views with flair and because he was restored to prominence by influential figures in the Northern Song period,2 twentieth-century scholars have placed him at center stage in Tang intellectual history. Unfortunately, this emphasis on Han is problematic. The taxonomy I would like to acknowledge the helpful advice of Peter Bol, Shirley Chang, James Hargett, Charles Hartman, Stephen Owen, and two anonymous readers for the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies. I, of course, am responsible for the essay's remaining flaws. ' For an example, see Guo Shaoyu *-i^j, Zhongguo wenxue piping shi IP *If t l=T (1934; rpt., Taibei: Minglun chubanshe, 1972), pp. 194-272. 2 Although Han and his circle had not been completely forgotten, the great Northern Song erary values with the literary reform ideal of "returning to antiquity" (fu gu iti). Literary culture was central to Tang intellectual history. During the first 140 years of the Tang, although scholars occasionally called for restraint and reform, they generally agreed that the literary traliteratus Ouyang Xiu (1007-1072) believed that he had been largely neglected. See Ouyang Xiu, Ouyang Xiu quanji WJMP|_-(Beijing: Zhongguo shudian, 1986), p. 536 (Jushi waiji Ei)Xt 23); and James T.C. Liu, Ou-yang Hsiu: An Eleventh-Century Neo-Confucianist (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1967), pp. 142-44. 6 QUAN DEYU AND TANG THOUGHT dition provided the best guide for men's actions and that those who wrote well were good men.3 Tang history, however, was dramatically punctuated by the An Lushan rebellion, which devastated much of North China between 755 and 763. The trauma of the rebellion shattered the confidence that intellectuals had in their culture. It also interrupted the career prospects of many thinking men, including members of the Great Clans. Their lives disrupted, these men began to explore the reasons for the debacle. Many of them concluded that a lack of moral seriousness in intellectual culture led directly to the political and military disaster.4 The most strident expressions of this view came from those writers who felt most marginalized.5 The physical destruction of the war years was far less significant for intellectual history than the weakening of the central bureaucracy in the Tang government. The rise of virtually autonomous provincial administrations and ad hoc financial organizations reduced the influence of the regular bureaucracy in the Tang capital Chang'an.6 The fragmentation of political authority was matched by a fragmentation of intellectual culture,7 as scholars struggled to answer an ever-present question: How could social and political order be restored to the Empire? Two solutions stood out. The first, (709-784), Li Hua 4 (c. 710-c. 767), Yuan Jie Jce (719-772), and Dugu Ji WfjlR. (725-777). 5 McMullen has noted the serious career setbacks suffered by his subjects: none was able to enjoy a successful career in the central government bureaucracy after the rebellion, and only Yan Zhenqing held a significantly powerful provincial position. See McMullen, "Historical and Literary Theory," pp. 316-19. 6 The weakening of central government control over political and economic affairs is most thoroughly discussed by Denis Twitchett in the following works: "Provincial Autonomy and Central Finance in Late T'ang," AM, n.s. 11 (1965): 211-32; Financial Administration under the T'ang Dynasty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Charles Hartman has discussed some of the intellectual implications of the growth of irregular institutions and the central bureaucracy's loss of power; see his Han Yu and the T'ang Searchfor Unity (Princeton:

2007

Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 2005

1991

Chang Ping-lin (1869-1936) was the main architect of modem Chinese nationalism and a pivotal figure in China's transformation from empire to republic. Yet in the English-speaking world he remains a relatively obscure entity compared with his Revolutionary comrades (Sun Yat-sen, Huang Hsing, Sung Chiao-jen and others) or with his erstwhile Reformist colleagues (such as K'ang Yu-wei and Liang Ch'i-ch'ao). Even less well-known and understood is Chang Ping-lin as a thinker, compared with his contemporaries, Yen Fu, T'an Ssü-t'ung, Wang Kuo-wei, Ts'ai Ylian-p'ei and Hsiung Shih-li, to name but a few. Yet Chang's philosophical achievement was second to none of the above-mentioned. In fact Chang Ping-lin was probably the single philosopher that modem China has ever produced in terms of intellectual magnitude, vigour, methodology and depth. This preliminary study of Chang sets out to tackle this blind spot in Western studies of modem Chinese intellectual history. In China itself, the study of Chang Ping-lin suffers from a different kind of limitation, largely due to party politics and related historiographical prejudice. As a partisan of the people and a non-conformist in party politics, Chang Ping-lin, both the man and his thought, has very often been treated inadequately or unjustly by official historians of both the Communist and the Nationalist camps. Apart from many other reasons, including ideological differences and Chang's own condemnation of both the CCP and the KMT (ranging from Sun Yat-sen to Chiang Kai-shek), the sources of this misunderstanding and animosity can be traced back, respectively, to Chang's opponent, Wu Chih-hui, and, ironically, Chang's student, Lu Hsiin, both of whom (posthumously in Lu Hsiin's case) were figures of great intellectual authority in the KMT and CCP regimes respectively. Lu Hsiin advanced the view that Chang's overall intellectual achievement was less impressive than his political contribution to the 1911 Revolution. This view has since inspired, in the PRC, a prevailing portrait of Chang Ping-lin as a vi political suspect who in his later years degenerated into a reactionary and a useless scholar, whose earlier revolutionary contribution, even, becomes questionable because of his schism with Sun Yat-sen. Moreover, Chang's idealistic philosophy is often dogmatically dismissed. On the other side of party politics, Chang did not fare much better, though he has been generally respected as the last master of classical learning. But this image of Chang suggests that he was at best a custodian of traditional Chinese culture, virtually an "antiquarian phenomenon" having little to do with modem reality. However these two views may differ in detail, they reveal a common perception of Chang as a man of the past and an assumption that his Faustian activities were largely misplaced and his pursuit of a Chinese renaissance quixotic and irrelevant. This study intends to redress all these misconceptions of Chang Ping-lin, and in particular, to balance Lu Hsiin's one-sided assessment by recognising Chang's remarkable intellectual achievement, and by highlighting his "dialogue" with the intellectual heritage of the West, in the various fields of linguistics, political thought, historiography, classical scholarship and cultural criticism, as well as philosophy proper. Chang's versatile writing and profound insight in all these fields amount to what can only be described as "the Chang Ping-lin phenomenon". The present research into this phenomenon attempts to argue that the reverse of Lu Hsiin's assessment is closer to the truth. External factors aside, many of the misconceptions and misunderstandings, it would seem to me, also arose from the ambiguity and contradictions in Chang's own thought. The dual characters of Chang's mind is indeed evident and may have much to do with the double role he assumed as at once an engaged scholar and a disinterested political activist. More importantly, it reflects the conscious movement to and from what he himself revealed as the worlds of the transcendent and the mundane. I therefore take this fundamental dichotomy in the structure of Chang's thought, together with the tension between vii scholarship and politics, as the key to disclosing the inner world of Chang Pinglin. With such a perspective I intend to demonstrate that the tension between the transcendent and the mundane, and between scholarship and politics, actually provided the essential dynamic in his vigorous intellectual discourse. Thus perceived, most of the ambiguities, confusions or contradictions become more apparent than real. In short, this topical study attempts to show that the real Chang Ping-lin was hardly an "antiquarian phenomenon", on the contrary, his thought went far ahead of his time. Even his immediate impact on the ensuing May-Fourth generation was much greater than has been previously acknowledged. Errata p. viii (Table of contents) Darsana, not Daräana Chapter 7, pp. 141-147-out of order THE TRANSCENDENT AND THE MUNDANE

Frontiers of Education in China, 2019

Political Theology, 2019

Although published two decades ago, Christianity, Confucianism, and Modern Chinese Revolution deserves academic attention for two reasons. First, the question that provoked the debate in the book is yet to be answered. Second, the debate has led to the introduction of Schmittian political theology into China and has contributed to the new intellectual movement commonly known as tianxia (All-under-Heaven) discourse. The debate, between German sinologist Wolfgang Kubin and Chinese theologian Liu Xiaofeng, frames the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949 as a theopolitical event, and questions whether the revolution is a result of a secularized Chinese or Christian theology.