¹ Taiping Tienkuo Ke-yao [Ballads of the Taiping Tienkuo], edited by the Taiping Tienkuo Historical Museum, Shanghai Wen-i chʻu-pan-she, 1962. Neither this, nor any of the other Chinese language sources cited in this article, to the knowledge of the writer, has been made available in an English language translation at the time of this writing.

² Li Hsiu-chʻeng chʻin-kung shou-chi [Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Personal Deposition in his own Handwriting], World Press: Taipei, 1962. An English translation, abridged and otherwise revised version of this document is: Lay, W. T. (tr.), The Autobiograpy of the Chung-wang (Shanghai, 1865), 104 pp.Google Scholar

³ Li addressed his remarks to Tseng Kuo-fan. See Li Hsiu-chʻeng chʻin kung shou-chi, pp. 70–72.

⁴ Chin Ying-hsi, “Chou Ku-chʻeng shih tsem-yang tʻan-hu Chʻin Kʻuai, tsan-chʻeng tʻou-hsiang, ti-hui chu-chan-pʻai-ti” [“How Chou Ku-chʻeng Defends Chʻin Kʻuai, Favors Capitulation and Slanders War Advocates”], Hung Chʻi, Nos. 17–18 (September 23, 1964), 21–25.

⁵ Direct antecedents of the controversy are to be found exactly one year earlier in the same journal, when Chʻi first criticized Li Hsiu-chʻeng and questioned Lo's theory: Chʻi Pen-yu, “Pʻing Li Hsiu-chʻeng tzu-shu” [“Criticism of Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Autobiography”], Li-shih yen-chiu, No. 4 (1963), 27–42. In the same issue, Lo merely provided a two-page, stop-gap presentation of his views: Lo Erh-kang, “Kuan-yü wo hsieh Li Hsiu-ch'eng tzu-shu kʻao-cheng-ti chi-tien shuo-ming” [“Several Points of Explanation Concerning My Examination of Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Autobiography”], LSYC, No. 4 (1963), 43–45.

⁶ Chʻi Pen-yu, “Tsem-yang tui-tai Li Hsiu-chʻeng-ti tʻou-hsiang pien-chieh hsing-wei?” [“How Shall We Treat Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Treacherous Surrender?”], LSYC, No. 4 (1964), 1–20.

⁷ Erh-kang, Lo, “Chung-wang Li Hsiu-chʻeng kʻu-jou huan-ping-chi kʻao” [“An Examination of the Loyal Prince Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Plan of Self-Sacrifice to Delay the Enemy”], LSYC, No. 4 (1964), 21–80.Google Scholar

⁸ This same issue contained a third article on Li Hsiu-chʻeng by two historians. It discussed neither Lo nor Chʻi's interpretation, but accepted the interpretation that Li had surrendered. It paid tribute to Li's contributions to the revolution, especially to Li's opposition to the foreign invaders. However, neither the article nor its authors played any further role in the controversy, and the part they did play, if it can be construed as part of the controversy at all, seems to have been minimal: Shou-tʻung, Su and Yen-nan, Wu, “Lüeh-lun Li Hsiu-chʻeng” [“Summary Discussion of Li Hsiu-chʻeng”], LSYC, No. 4 (1964), 81–100.Google Scholar

⁹ In conversation with the writer in Hong Kong, April 1965. Without agreeing with all of Jen's views, the writer is in his debt for much valuable information about and insights into Taiping history.

¹⁰ A probable reference to Li's comments in his autobiography of the circumstances that led to his joining the Taipings. He indicated that he joined because of his ignorance, religious superstition, and the lack of food in his district after the Taipings had stayed there. See Li Hsiu-chʻeng chʻin-kung shou-chi, pp. 3–4.

¹¹ After having gone over to the Chʻing, Sung revisited Nanking for a few days and tried to persuade Li to surrender too. Li refused, but his own account of the matter opens the way to the possible interpretation that he may have refused because Sung brought inadequate proof of guarantees of safety for Li. Sung also went unpunished by Li and returned to the Chʻing side. See Ibid., pp. 64–65.

¹² Li did take jewels and silver with him in his flight from Nanking, and a quarrel over his property among the villagers with whom he stayed for a short time did attract the attention that led to his capture. However, to claim that he could not abandon his property in a dangerous situation is tendentious. See Ibid., pp. 67–68.

¹³ Chʻi Pen-yu, “Pʻing Li Hsiu-chʻeng tzu-shu” [“Criticism of Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Autobiography”], Kuang-ming jih-pao, July 25, 1964; Lo Erh-kang, “Chung-wang Li Hsiu-chʻeng-ti kʻu-jou huan-ping chi” [“The Loyal Prince Li Hsiu-chʻeng's Self-Sacrifice to Delay the Enemy Plan”], Jen-min jih-pao, July 27, 1964, and the KMJP, July 28, 1964.

¹⁴ Yen-fa, Chou, “Pʻing Li Hsiu-chʻeng” [“Criticism of Li Hsiu-chʻeng”], KMJP, July 25, 1964.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kʻang Yu-ming, “Tu Chʻi Pen-yu: ‘Pʻing Li Hsiu-chʻeng tzu-shu’” [“Reading Chʻi Pen-yu's Criticism of Li Hsiu-cheng's Autobiography”], KMJP, July 31, 1964.

¹⁶ Hsu, Su, ‘Li Hsiu-chʻeng shih wei-hsiang hai-shih tʻou-hsiang” [“Did Li Hsiu-chʻeng Falsely Surrender or Not”], KMJP, August 2, 1964.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Shu-i, Yuan and I-tzu, Lu, “Li Hsiu-chʻeng chi chʻi tzu-shu-ti pʻing-chia wen-tʻi” [“The Evaluation Question of Li Hsiu-chʻeng and his Autobiography”], JMJP, August 3, 1964.Google Scholar

¹⁸ “Hsien chung yu Chʻin, i chang-fu hsin-i, Chʻu ken jung jen, i erh szu-pao.” ^a Li may have been referring in garbled fashion to an instance in a popular novel, such as the Lieh-kuo yen-i, the kind of literature in which the poorly-educated warrior was steeped. However, the allusion does not fit any historical or fictional pattern I have been able to find. The question of the historical accuracy of Li's comment, it might be noted, does not appear to have concerned the Communist historians.

¹⁹ Of all the Mainland historians who participated in the debate only Lo Erh-kang refrained from using expressions for “surrender” as if they had been taken from Li's autobiography. It seems that Lo actually did use a copy of the Taiwan edition although he does not seem to have acknowledged the source or date of its publication, undoubtedly understandable under the circumstances. This seems confirmed by Lo's reference to specific numerals on specific pages in the “photolithographic edition of die existing original draft” which are precisely the same as in the photolithographic Taiwan edition—LSYC, No. 4 (1964), 42. Irrespective of the ultimate judgment on his interpretation of Li's behavior, Lo Erh-kang certainly has the greatest knowledge of the Taipings among these Mainland historians. Also to his credit, we must note that he is the most careful and objective of them all, and the least inhibited by Communist injunctions on the reading of history.

²⁰ See footnote 2 of this article.

²¹ Yu-wen, Jen, “Chung-wang Chʻin-pi kung-tzu-chih chʻu-pu yen-chiu,” (“Preliminary Study of the Chung Wang's Handwritten Confessional Statement”), Szu-hsiang yü shih-tai, No. 103 (Taipei, February 1963), 2–10.Google Scholar

²² A good, brief, accessible account of Li Hsiu-chʻeng in English is still that of Teng Ssu-yu in Eminent Chinese of the Chʻing Period (1644–1912), edited by Hummel, Arthur W. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1943), Vol. I, pp. 459–463.Google Scholar