No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
1 These studies are reviewed in Pinckney, James Harrison'sThe Communists and Chinese Peasant Rebellions (New York, 1969).Google Scholar
2 E.g. Jean, Chesneaux (ed.), Popular Movements and Secret Societies in China, 1840–1950 (Stanford, 1972).Google Scholar
3 In Chūgoku minshū hanran no sekai, compiled by the Chūgoku, Seinen Kenkyūsha Kaigi (Tokyo, 1974), pp. 147–217. Sōda's earlier articles on Chinese rebellions have comparatively little to say about religion. It is interesting to note that this study was provoked by research on the Red Army.Google Scholar
4 This book was immediately preceded by the articles *‘Shūkyō hanran to ekisei kakumei’, Aichi Daigaku bungakkai bungaku ronsō, 41, 1970, pp. 1–28,Google Scholar which outlined Suzuki's most recent approach to the problem of religion and revolution with reference to the late Yūan, , and ‘*Ekisei kakumei to shūkyō hanran’, Ajia kenkyū, 19, 1 (1972), pp. 18–35,Google Scholar which indicated the way in which this approach could be extended to other periods of history.
5 See section six of his *‘Shōki no Kōtendō’, Tōhō Shūkyō 8, 9 (1955) pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
6 See note 46 of his ‘Mindai Byakurenkyō no ichi kōsatsu’, TōyōShi kenkyū, 35, 1 (1976), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar A Ch'ang-sheng tao was among the sects proscribed by the government in 1953.
7 *‘Mindai hokuhen no Byakurenkyō to sono katsudō’, in Shimizu Hakase tsuitō kinen Mindaishi ronsō (Tokyo, 1962), pp. 283–313. The article by Fuma referred to in the preceding note is chiefly concerned with aspects of the same subject.Google Scholar
8 *‘Chinese in Southern Mongolia during the Sixteenth Century’, Monumenta Serica, 18 (1959), pp. 1–95. See esp. pp. 34, 38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Tsukamoto has indeed expressed a very positive attitude not only to the Lo religion, as remarked by Overmyer, but also to sectarian religion in general, in his *‘Hōkan to kindai Shina no shūkyō’, Bukkyō bunka kenkyū, I, (1951), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar This is connected, however, with his very negative assessment of establishment Buddhism under the Ming and Ch'ing. He speaks of the ‘emasculation’ of Buddhism by the state, and affirms that the increasing militancy of the sectarians was in part due to the repressive religious policies of these dynasties, in *‘Min-Shin seiji no Bukkyō kyosei’, Bukkyō bunka kenkyū, 2 (1952), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
10 The cooperation that developed between Ōmoto-kyō and the Red Swastika Society in the 1920s points to basic compatabilities: see Murakami, Shigeyoshi, *Deguchi Onisaburō (Tokyo, 1973), pp. 155ff.Google Scholar On the other hand, intriguing differences also emerge, as has been noted by Blacker, Carmen in her *‘Millenarian Aspects of the New Religious in Japan’, pp. 563–600 of Tradition and Modernization in Japanese Culture, ed. Donald, H. Shively (Princeton, 1971).Google Scholar
11 *‘Kinsan ikki to sono keitō’, Shigaku zasshi, 42, 8 (1932), pp. 1–35.Google Scholar Curiously enough, a similar point is made in one of the current crop of Chinese publications on the Manichaean-led Fang La rebellion. See p. 10 of the pamphlet ‘Fang La ch'i-i’, in the series Li-shih chih-shih tu-wu (Peking, 1976).Google Scholar
12 By Kojima, Shinji, p. 229 of his essay *‘Nōmin sensō ni okeru shūkyō’, pp. 205–48 in Chūgoku bunka sōshō, 6—Shūkyō, ed. Kubo, Noritada and Nishi, Junzō (Tokyo, 1967).Google Scholar
13 In a note appended to his *‘Raso no Muikyō’, Pt 2, Tōhō Shūkyō, 2 (1951), pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
14 *‘Chūgoku minkan no taiyō shinkō to sono kyōten’, Tenri Daigaku Gakuhō, 59 (1968), pp. 56–72.Google Scholar
15 By P'u-tu, (of whom more will be said below), in his Lien-tsung pao-chien of 1305, p. 349Google Scholar a in the ed. of the Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, Vol. 47.Google Scholar
16 Suzuki, Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 74.Google ScholarWada's, arguments are contained in *‘Min no Taiso to kōkin no zoku’, Tōyō gakuhō, 13, 2 (1923), pp. 122–46,Google Scholar and *‘Min no kokuhō ni tsuite’, Shigaku zasshi, 41, 5 (1931), pp. 70–5.Google Scholar
17 See Osabe, Kazuo, *‘Hakuikai ni tsuite’, Shirin, 28, 1 (1943), pp. 58–79.Google Scholar A more concise survey is the report of Ogasawara, Senshū *‘So-Gen jidai no koji to hakui dōshi’, Shūkyō kenkyū, 190 (1967), pp. 161–2.Google Scholar
18 Chiefly in Chūgoku Kinsei Jōdokyōshi no kenkyū (Kyoto, 1963), which resumes a number of earlier articles.Google Scholar
19 Ogasawara, Kinsei Jōdokyōshi, p. 156.Google Scholar
20 See the brief summary by Masuda, Fukutarō in *‘Shin-matsu Minkoku-sho ni okeru shomin no shūkyō to seikatsu’, Fukuoka daigaku kenkyū jōhō, 8 (1969), pp. 1–27. The movement has been the subject of several more detailed reports.Google Scholar
21 See Ogawa, Kanichi, *‘Gendai Byakurenkyō no kokuzō jiseki’, Shina Bukkyō shigaku, 7, 1 (1943), pp. 4–14.Google Scholar
22 Fu-chiao chi, Part One, p. 391 in Ogasawara, Kinsei Jōdokyōshi. Suzuki Chūsei, Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 78, brings forward evidence to suggest that a priest executed in 1295 was also a White Lotus member.Google Scholar
23 Suzuki, had actually drawn attention to P'u-tu's remarks on the subject in his ‘Sōdai Bukkyō kessha no kenkyū’, Shigaku zasshi, 52, 3 (1941), p. 57.Google Scholar
24 *‘Gendai Byakuun shūmon no katsudō jōtai’, in Ishihara Sensei Kanreki kinen rombunshū, Kansai University, 1958 (22pp.).Google ScholarOgawa, had earlier published much of the contents of this essay in an article in Bukkyō Shigaku, 3, 1 (1952).Google Scholar I have been unable to consult an article by Haraguchi Tokusei asserting that there was Manichaean influence on this sect, viz. *‘Byakuunshū wa gisō Manikyō nari’, Jōdogaku, 13 (1938).Google Scholar
25 See Inaba, Seiichi *‘Shindai no himitsu kessha’, Shibun 5 (1952), pp. 12–24.Google Scholar
26 *‘Min-Shin jidai no shūkyō kessha to sankyō’, Rekishi kyōiku 17, 3 (1969). pp. 50–6.Google Scholar
27 In his *Wang-sheng li-tsan chi, p. 446a in the ed.Google Scholar of the Taishō shinshū daizōkyō, Vol. 49. Overmyer (p. 239, n. 33) appears to ascribe this innovation to Lo Ch'ing some eight centuries later.Google Scholar
28 See Schipper's, K. M. remarks on p. 23 of hisGoogle Scholar*L'Empereur Wou des Han dans la Légende Taoiste (Paris, 1965).Google Scholar
29 On p. 116, n. 2 and p. 119, n. 2 of her *La Divinisation de Lao Tseu dans le Taoisme des Han (Paris, 1969).Google Scholar
30 See Ogawa, ‘Gendai Byakuun shūmon …’, p. 19.Google Scholar
31 Fu-chiao chi, Part One, p. 392 as reprinted by Ogasawara.Google Scholar
32 Beal, S., *A Catena of Buddhist Scriptures from the Chinese (London, 1871), p. 411,Google Scholar and Reichelt, K. L., *Truth and Tradition in Chinese Buddhism (Shanghai, 1934), p. 169.Google Scholar
33 Daijō Bukkyō seiritsuron josetsu (Kyoto, 1965), I, 582.Google Scholar
34 Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien (Louvain, 1958), p. 214.Google Scholar
35 See Fukui, Kōjun *Dōkyō no kisoteki kenkyū (Tokyo, 1952), p. 183, and n. 15, p. 186, referring to a text attributed to the late fifth century and certainly no later than the seventh.Google Scholar
36 Burton, Watson, *Records of the Grand Historian of China (New York and London, 1961), I, 471.Google Scholar
37 Seidel, La Divinisation de Lao Tseu, p. 106.Google Scholar
38 See the remarks of Huang, Yü-p'ien in Kōchū Haja shōben, ed. Sawada, Mizuho (Tokyo, 1972), p. 107.Google Scholar
39 A title with more than one claimant: see Kōchū Haja shōben, pp. 105, 139; and also Sawada's introduction, p. 31.Google Scholar
40 See his *Dōkyō no kenkyū (Kyoto, 1952), p. 62, and n. 4, p. 68. This book is largely based on earlier articles.Google Scholar
41 ‘Secret Religious Societies in North China in the Ming Dynasty’, Folklore Studies, 7 (1948), pp. 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Chao, incidentally, uses the same method of transcription adopted here. For a tentative reconstruction of Kung-ch'ang's life, see Sawada's research reprinted in Kōchū Haja shōben, pp. 191–7,Google Scholar but cf. also Sakai, Tadao, Chūgoku zensho no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1960), p. 461–2.Google Scholar
42 On p. 87 of his Gendai Chūgoku no sho shūkyō (Tokyo, 1974).Google Scholar This enlarges slightly an earlier list in Dōkyō no kenkyū, but is not exhaustive. Further variants may be found in Shuai, Hsūeh-fu *Ch'ing Hung shu-yūan (Taipei, 1962), p. 155; Inaba Seiichi, ‘Shindai no himitsu kessha’, and Overmyer, pp. 120, 129.Google Scholar
43 See Huang, Yü-p'ien, in Kōchū Haja shōben, p. 20.Google Scholar
44 See Yoshioka, Yoshitoyo, *‘Rikuchō Dōkyō no shūmin shisō’, Nihon Chūgoku Gakkai hō, 16 (1964), pp. 90–107.Google Scholar
45 Sawada, Mizuho, *‘Kōyōkyō shitan’, Tenri Daigaku Gakuhō, 9, 1 (1957), pp. 63–85, shows that character-splitting was not simply confined to disguising surnames.Google Scholar
46 *‘Kinsei Shina taishō no joshin Kannon shinkō’, Yamaguchi hakase kanreki kinen Indogaku Bukkyōgaku ronsō (Kyoto, 1955), pp. 262–80.Google Scholar
47 *‘Kenryū-han Kōzan hōkan kaisetsu’, Dōkyō kenkyū, 4 (1971), pp. 115–26. Dr Glen Dudbridge of Oxford is about to publish a monograph dealing with Hsiangshan legend, which will doubtless throw much light on this problem.Google Scholar
48 *‘Un Exemple de Relations Entre Taoisme et Religion Populaire’, in Fukui Hakase Sōjō kinen Tōyō bunka ronshū (Tokyo, 1969), pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
49 *Chūgoku Jōdo kyōri shi (Kyoto, 1942), p. 419. The book's section on the White Lotus was earlier published as an article.Google Scholar
50 Lo, Hsiang-lin, *Liu-hsing yü Kan, Min, Yüeh chi Ma-lai-ya chih Chen-k'ung chiao (Hong Kong, 1962), p. 112.Google Scholar
51 See Chou, K'o-fu, *Ching-t'u Ch'en-chung (1656), 9, 147b in ed.Google Scholar of Dai Nihon Zoku Zōkyō, 2A 142.Google Scholar
52 This is the subject of Yoshioka's, ‘Rikuchō Dōkyō no shūmin shisō’, mentioned in n. 44 above.Google Scholar
53 Though these were only parallels to the mudrā of Tantric Buddhism. On this see Yoshioka, Yoshitoyo, *‘Dōkyō no tōketsu (ingei) ni tsuite’, Taishō Daigaku Gakuhō, 38 (1952), pp. 111–29.Google Scholar
54 Yoshioka, , Dōkyō no kenkyū, p. 63.Google Scholar
55 Yoshio, C. Ikemoto, who actually ascribes the more secretive structure of the Ch'ing-men group of secret societies by comparison to the Triad (T'ien-ti Hui) societies to their greater admixture of Buddhist ideas: *Chūgoku kindai himitsu kessha kō (Nagoya, 1973), p. 190.Google Scholar
56 Shin-matsu no himitsu kessha, zempen (Tokyo, 1970).Google Scholar
57 *‘Chinese Religion and Rural Cohesion in the Nineteenth Century’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Hong Kong Branch, 8 (1968), pp. 9–43.Google Scholar
58 Kakumei to shūkyō, pp. 68–9.Google Scholar
59 For instance, in the standard account by Ch'en, Kuo-ping, *Ch'ing-men k'ao-yüan (reprinted Hong Kong, 1965), pp. 41–5.Google Scholar I have been unable to consult the study by Hsieh Jung-chih cited by Overmyer concerning the connection between the religion founded by Lo and the later secret society. Sawada Mizuho (‘Raso no Muikyō’, Pt 2’) takes it that the two groups were not lineally connected, but it is also possible that Lo Ch'ing was retained rather than acquired as a patriarch: at least one study asserts that the Ch'ing-men were in origin adherents of the Lo religion forced into a more aggressive role by economic circumstance, viz. Morits, Akira, *‘Shindai suishu kessha no seikaku ni tsuite’, Tōyōshi kenkyū 13, 5 (1955), pp. 364–76.Google Scholar Needless to say, such a pattern of development would contradict not only Overmyer's interpretation of the problem, but also Suzuki's.
60 Note the issues raised, for instance, by Hiroshi, Okuzaki in n. 51 of his *‘Mindai ni okeru jinushi no shisō no ichi kōsatsu’, Tōyō gakuhō 51, 2 (1968), pp. 28–67.Google Scholar
61 That the sects included people of a diversity of social origins is shown by Noguchi, Tetsurō, *‘Mindai shūkyō kessha no kyōto no mondai’, Tōhō Shūkyō, 13–14 (1958), pp. 95–110, even though he stresses their comparative homogeneity.Google Scholar
62 Suzuki, , Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 215.Google Scholar
63 Cf. the review of Suzuki's Kakumei to shūkyō by Okuzaki, Hiroshi in Shigaku zasshi, 84, 8 (1975), pp. 71–81.Google Scholar
64 This is made clear by Sasaki Masaya's study mentioned above, especially in his Ch. 3, Pt 7.Google Scholar
65 Cf. the remarks of Philip, A. Kuhn, in Rebellion and its Enemies in Late Imperial China (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), pp. 167ff.Google Scholar
66 In materials collected by Communist historians and described by Sasaki, Masaya, Shin-matsu no himitsu kessha, pp. 181–2.Google Scholar
67 See Lev Deliusin, ‘The I-kuan Tao Society’, p. 230, in Chesneaux, (ed.), Secret Societies in China, 1840–1950.Google Scholar
68 Topley, ‘Chinese Religion and Rural Cohesion’, note 52.Google Scholar
69 This suggestion was contained in an article *‘Pai-lien chiao ching-chüan’, Wenhui pao, 10 March 1961, which I have not had to hand.Google Scholar
70 *‘Chung-kuo nung-min chan-cheng yü tsung-chiao chi ch'i hsiang-kuan chuwen-t'i’, Li shih lun-ts'ung, 1 (1964), pp. 79–102,Google Scholar gives Hsiung's views. T'ao's religious activities are mentioned by Sasaki, Masaya, Shin-matsu no himitsu kessha, p. 61, quoting Hirayama Shū.Google Scholar
71 Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 206–7.Google Scholar
72 Ibid., p. 205.
73 *‘Min-matsu no Kōhōkyō to teigeki no an’, Tsukamoto hakase sōjū kinen Bukkyō shigaku ronshū (Kyoto, 1961), pp. 390–8.Google Scholar
74 Secret Societies in China, 1840–1950, p. 12.Google Scholar
75 In his *‘Shih-chiu shih-chi hsia-pan chih Chung-kuo ti mi-mi hui-she’, Li-shih yen-chiu, 2 (1963), pp. 83–100.Google Scholar
76 Jerome, Ch'en, *‘Secret Societies’, Ch'ing-shih Wen-t'i, 1, 3 (1966), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
77 This is only apparent in his *‘Rakyō ni tsuite’, Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō, 1, (1943), pp. 441–501, since Kakumei to shūkyō, omits detailed references.Google Scholar
78 Kakumei to shūkyō, pp. 196–7.Google Scholar
79 Viz. the T'ung-shan She. See e.g. Suemitsu, Takayoshi, *Shina no himitsu kessha to jizen kessha (Dairen, 1932), p. 253.Google Scholar
80 Shin-matsu no himitsu kessha, pp. 140, 163.Google Scholar
81 Except where they should be modified in the light of materials not consulted by Overmyer, e.g. on p. 97 ‘in the mountains behind Chien-ning lu’ should read ‘on Hou-shan in Chien-ning lu’.
82 Sawada, , Kōchū Haja shōben, p. 246;Google ScholarSuzuki, , Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 215.Google Scholar
83 Sawada, Kōchū Haja shōben, pp. 31, 153.Google Scholar
84 Suzuki, Kakumei to shūkyō, p. 112.Google Scholar
85 Ibid., pp. 209ff.
86 See especially Naquin's, summary on p. 215.Google Scholar
87 See the account of previous studies given in Jerome, Ch'en, ‘The Origin of the Boxers’, pp. 57–84 in Studies in the Social History of China and South-East Asia, ed. Jerome, Ch'en and Nicholas, Tarling (Cambridge, 1970). Naquin herself (p. 3) indicates her support for one established solution to the problem rejected by Ch'en, but gives no comment on whether this position has been influenced by her own discoveries.Google Scholar
88 See her remarks on p. 43. The deliberate nature of name changes revealed here calls to mind the ‘work-names’ discovered by Marjorie Topley among Singapore sects, where sect names were related to specific tasks, and hence changed as the sect's aims changed. See Overmyer, p. 161.
89 See n. 33 of his ‘Rebels Between Rebellions—Secret Societies in the Novel’, P'eng Kung An', Journal of Asian Studies, 29, 4 (August 1970), pp. 807–22.Google Scholar
90 This aspect of the Yüan sects emerges most clearly in Ogawa, Kanichi's ‘Byakuunshū Daizōkyōkyōku no kikō’, Ryūkoku Shidan, 62 (1969), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
91 Yanagida, Seizan, p. 377, n. 2 of Shoki Zenshū Shisho no kenkyū (Tokyo, 1967),Google Scholar suggests that the beginnings of Chinese interest in what was to become the patriarchal succession of the Ch'an school was influenced by the first major persecution of Chinese Buddhism. The resilience that its emphasis on the master–disciple relationship gave the school in the face of the Hui-ch'ang persectuion has been noted by many scholars.
92 Sakai, Tadao, Zensho no kenkyū, p. 444.Google Scholar The prominence of features like destructive winds in sectarian eschatology points to the influence of orthodox Buddhism, perhaps through the popular digests of Buddhist doctrine that were certainly consulted by Lo Ch'ing.
93 For instance, the prophecy given by Naquin on p. 290, which dates to 1923, is basically similar in its message to one cited by Ogasawara from a Tunhuang manuscript of 803 on p. 278 of Kinsei Jōdōkyōshi: neither of these dates, of course, is associated with any disturbance like that of 1813.
94 She also points out that their scarcity led to copying by hand: this would support Hsiung Te-chi's contention that seditious passages in manuscript pao-chūan date from a later stage of interpolation when sectarian political awareness had increased.
95 ‘Hakkekyō genryū’, Kokugakuin Zasshi, 55, 1 (1954), pp. 158–70.Google Scholar
96 Kōchū Haja shōben, p. 79;Google ScholarChou, Tso-jen, ‘Wu-sheng Lao-mu ti hsin-hsi’, pp. 37–8,Google Scholar as reprinted in Chih-t'ang i-yu wen-pien (Hong Kong, 1962);Google ScholarSawada, Mizuho, Hōkan no kenkyū (Nagoya, 1963), p. 33.Google Scholar
97 ‘Dōkō Hakuyōkyō shimatsu’, Tōyōgaku Ronshū, 1 (1954), pp. 151–66. Sawada's judicious remarks on this incident bear close comparison with Naquin's study.Google Scholar
98 See p. 189 of Wang, Hsiao-chuan's, Yüan Ming Ch'ing san-tai chin-hui hsiao-shuo hsi-chū shih-liao (Peking, 1958), which reprints the entire text.Google Scholar
99 A further item reprinted by Wang Hsiao-chuan on p. 94 which also stresses the connection between play performances and sects and secret societies has been translated by William, Dolby in A History of Chinese Drama (London, 1976), p. 139.Google Scholar