No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Many of us who have studied the modern history of China first learned of the late nineteenth-century reform movement in texts with chapters or sections entitled, “The Hundred Days of Reform,” or “The Reform Movement of 1898.” In such works our attention was directed to that group of politically inexperienced idealists who sought to impose upon a recalcitrant bureaucracy and apathetic populace a series of reforms designed to rescue the empire from impending dismemberment at the hands of foreign powers. The main emphasis of these standard accounts was upon the events of 1898 and their significance in China's political history. During the past twenty years, however, scholarly interest in the reformers has shifted from a preoccupation with their activities in 1898 to a more general consideration of their intellectual antecedents and the ideological content of their reform programs. Studies along these lines have placed the events of 1898 in a broader historical perspective—as the climax of a movement that was more than a decade in the making. This recent trend in scholarship is reflected in the four papers of this symposium. Separately and collectively, these papers confirm what earlier studies have suggested, that the reformers' objectives in 1898 can best be understood in the context of an intellectual movement that assumed its distinctive characteristics during the decade of the 1890's.
Information
- Type
- The Chinese Reform Movement of the 1890's: A Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1969
References
1 For example, Onogawa Hidemi, “Shimmatsu hempōron no seiritsu,” (On the late Ch'ing reform writings) Tōhō gakuho (Kyoto) No. 20 (March 1951), 153–84Google Scholar. Also in this trend would be the four-volume collection of materials on the reforms of 1898: Po-tsan, Chien et al. , eds., Wu-hsü pienfa (The reforms of 1898) (Shanghai: 1957)Google Scholar, which first appeared in 1953. Despite its title, this collection includes numerous writings of the early 1890's, which serve to place the 1898 reforms in broader perspective.
2 Notable among these books were the Wei-yen (Words of warning) (1890)Google Scholar, by T'ang Chen; Sheng-shih wei-yen (Words of warning to an age of prosperity) (1893)Google Scholar, by Cheng Kuan-ying; Chih-p'ing t'ung-i (Comprehensive proposals for maintaining the peace) (1893)Google Scholar, by Ch'en Ch'iu; and yung-shu (Trite sayings) (ca, 1894)Google Scholar, by Ch'en Chih. These writings and their authors have been discussed in Onogawa, 156–74; briefly in Kung-ch'üan, Hsiao, “Weng T'ung-ho and the Reform Movement of 1898,” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies I, No. 2 (April 1957), 150–52, and 222–24Google Scholar (notes 253–64); and most recently in Eastman, Lloyd E., “Political Reformism in China Before the Sino-Japanese War,” Journal of Asian Studies, XXVII (August 1968), 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 This aspect of protonationalism in China was brought out in relation to Feng Kuei-fen, Wang T'ao and K'ang Yu-wei in papers presented at a panel on Nationalistic Thought in Nineteenth-Century China, held at the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in Chicago in March 1967, under the joint sponsorship of the Society for Ch'ing Studies. One of these papers has since been published: Cohen, Paul A., “Wang T'ao and Incipient Chinese Nationalism,” Journal of Asian Studies, XXVI (August 1967), 559–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Concern about the barriers to communication was often expressed by such phrases as “t'ung min ch'ing,” or “ta shang hsia chih ch'ing,” or other variants. These phrases occur, for example, in Sheng-shih wei-yen (rev. ed. 1900), I (i-yüan), 5b; Chih-p'ing t'ung-i, V (Chiu-shih yao-i), 11b–12a; and Yung-shu (2d. ed., 1897)Google Scholar, nei-p'ien (hsing-cheng), 15a–16b. Perhaps the first writer to use the phrase in a modern context of reform was Wang T'ao, as in his T'ao-yüan wen-lu waipien (Outer section of the writings of T'ao-yüan) (Hong Kong): 1883)Google Scholar, I (chung-min: hsia), 22b.
5 Onogawa, , pp. 156–74Google Scholar; Eastman, , pp. 701–05Google Scholar. Even before the 1890's, however, Western parliamentary systems had been described in favorable terms in Wang T'ao, T'ao-yüan wen-lu wai-pien, I (chung-min: hsia), 21b–22a. See also, Cohen, , p. 567Google Scholar. Perhaps the earliest writer to recommend a “parliament” for China was Cheng Kuan-ying, in his I-yen (Words, of change) (pref. 1875, publ. 1880), shang (lun i-cheng), 38b–39a. Many of the reform ideas in this work later appeared in more elaborate form in his Sheng-shih wei-yen.
6 Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, “Lun chün-cheng min-cheng hsiang-shan chih li” (On the principles of succession of monarchy and democracy), Shih-wu pao (Current affairs magazine) No. 41 (October 6, 1897), 1a–4aGoogle Scholar; also in Ying-ping-shih wen chi (Collected literary works of the Ice-drinker's Studio), Vol. II, 7–11.Google Scholar
7 See T'an Ssu-t'ung, “Chuang-fei-lou chih-shih shih-p'ien” (Ten essays on the administration of affairs from the High-Flying Tower), T'an Ssu-t'ung ch'üan-chi (Complete works of T'an Ssu-t'ung) (Peking: 1954), pp. 94–95Google Scholar; and the citations from the Hsiang-pao (Hunan magazine) of Changsha, quoted in Teng Tan-chou, “Shih-chiu shih-chi mo Hu-nan ti wei-hsin yün-tung” (The Hunan reform movement of the late nineteenth century), Li-shih yen-chiu (Historical studies) No. 1 (1959). pp. 31–32.Google Scholar
8 The ch'ing-i practitioners, and in particular the ch'ing-liu group prominent in the 1870's and early 1880's, are discussed in Yen-p'ing, Hao, “A Study of the Ch'ing-liu tang: the 'Disinterested' Scholar-Official Group, 1875–1884,” Papers on China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, East Asian Research Center, 1962), 16, pp. 40–65Google Scholar; and in Eastman, Lloyd E., “Ch'ing-i and Chinese Policy Formation during the Nineteenth Century,” JAS, XXIV (August 1965), 595–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A listing of the ch'ing-liu group that is not mentioned in the above studies appears in Hsiao-jo, Chang, Nan-t'ung Chang Chi-chih hsien-sheng chuan-chi; fu Nien-p'u, Nien-piao (A biography of Mr. Chang Chien of Nan-t'ung, with appended chronology and tables) (Shanghai: 1931)Google Scholar. From these sources it would appear that the ch'ing-liu group included Chang Chih-tung, Chang P'ei-lun, Ch'en Pao-ch'en and Huang T'i-fang, as well as Pao-ting, Teng Ch'eng-hsiu and Wu Ta-ch'eng. Some contemporaries considered Li Hung-tsao to be a patron, if not the leader of this group. Hao Yen-p'ing (p. 42) also mentions a group of Hupeh censors, including T'u Jen-shou and Hung Liang-p'in, whose outlook was very close to that of the ch'ing-liu group. In addition to the central ch'ing-liu figures, Chang Hsiao-jo (Nien-p'u, p. 35Google Scholar) also lists certain “friends of the ch'ing-liu,” among whom were Sheng-yü, Liang Ting-fen, Huang Shao-chi (the son of Huang T'i-fang) and Wen T'ing-shih. These “friends of the ch'ing-liu” would be of special significance in demonstrating a personal connection between the ch'ing-i officials and K'ang Yu-wei. K'ang had been acquainted with the Cantonese, Liang Ting-fen, since the early 1880's. See, Sui-shih-hsien-jen, “Tu Liang Chieh-an t'ai-shih po p'an-fan ni shu shu hou” (After reading Liang Ting-fen's denunciation of the rebel K'ang's seditious letter), Wn-hsü pien-fa, Vol. II, 643–45Google Scholar. It may have been through Liang Ting-fen's good offices that K'ang was befriended in Peking by Sheng-yü and Huang Shao-chi, who supported K'ang in his efforts to submit his memorial of 1888. See, Jung-pang, Lo, ed. K'ang Yu-wei: a biography and a symposium (Tucson: 1967), p. 46Google Scholar. While in Peking in 1888–1889, K'ang also was in contact with the censors of the Hupeh group, T'u Jen-shou and Hung Liang-p'in. See, Lo Jung-pang pp. 47–50. Most of these acquaintances of K'ang's, together with other members of the ch'ing-liu group and their “friends,” appear as members of the Ch'iang-hsüeh hui in 1895. In the Peking branch of the society were Wen T'ing-shih and Hung Liang-p'in, with Chang Chih-tung a financial supporter and Li Hung-tsao also mentioned as a supporter. Among the membership of the Shanghai branch appear the names of Chang Chih-tung, Ch'en Pao-ch'en, and Huang T'i-fang, all three core members of the earlier ch'ing-liu group, as well as Huang Shao-chi, Liang Ting-fen, and T'u Jen-shou. For the Ch'iang-hsüeh hui membership, see “Ch'iang-hsüeh hui chi” (Record of the Ch'iang-hsüeh hui), Wan-kuo kung-pao (Review of the Times) VII, 83 (December 1895)Google Scholar, 15a/b; Shigenobu, Naito, “Kyō gakkai kiji” (An account of the Ch'iang-hsüeh hui), Tōyōshi kenkyū (Studies in Eastern History) XIX, 4 (March 1961), 47–48Google Scholar; and Chih-chün, T'ang, Wu-hsü pien-fa jen-wu chuan-kao (Draft biographies of personalities connected with the reforms of 1898) (Peking: 1961), pp. 339–43Google Scholar. A contemporary document also indicates the close connection between the ch'ing-liu group and the reform societies of 1895. In a letter to his teacher, apparently dated March 11, 1896, T'an Ssu-t'ung wrote: “The banning of the Ch'iang-hsüeh hui was due to the impeachment by Li Hung-chang's relative by marriage, the censor Yang Ch'ung-i. Yang knew that Li Hung-tsao would be certain to support the ch'ing-liu, and so he took advantage of Li Hung-tsao's absence in P'u-t'o-yü to send in his impeachment.” T'an Ssu-t'ung ch'üan-chi, p. 331Google Scholar. Still another connection suggests the rapport of the ch'ing-liu group with K'ang and the reformers. In the mid-1880's K'ang was an admirer of Teng Ch'eng-hsiu, a member of the ch'ing-liu group (and also a native of Kwangtung). See K'ang, “Yen-hsiang lao-wu shih-chi” (Poems of the old house of abiding fragrance), Nan-hai hsien-sheng shih-chi (Collected poems of K'ang Yu-wei) (Yokohama: 1911)Google Scholar, ch. 1, pp. 13b, 16b. Teng Ch'eng-hsiu also appears to have had a high regard for K'ang. Just before his death in 1891, he urged his student, Ou Chü-chia, to continue his studies under K'ang, whom Teng described as the most prominent of all Cantonese scholars in statecraft and letters. See Shao-ling, Li, Ou Chü-chia hsien-sheng chuan (Biography of Mr. Ou Chü-chia) (Taipei: 1960), p. 8.Google Scholar
9 Howard, Richard C., “Japan's Role in the Reform Program of K'ang Yu-wei,” in, Lo Jung-pang, pp. 280–312.Google Scholar