Abstract
In the aftermath of World War II, Hong Kong emerged as a prominent refuge for Chinese intellectuals fleeing the political upheaval in mainland China. Notable scholars such as Jao Tsung-I (饒宗頤, 1917-2018), Lo Hsiang-lin (羅香林, 1906-1978), and Qian Mu (錢穆, 1895-1980) engaged deeply with Korean historical studies, perceiving Korea as a critical case for examining the dynamics of Chinese cultural transmission abroad. This article employs textual analysis of their contributions to Korean historical discourse to elucidate how these scholars conceptualized cultural inheritance within the distinctive colonial context of Hong Kong. Their investigations, which underscored the Korean adaptations and preservation of Chinese traditions, reflected their own concerns regarding cultural continuity amidst the challenges of modernity and Western influence. By situating their scholarship within the broader academic and cultural landscape of Hong Kong, this study highlights the importance of Korea-focused research in shaping the intellectual milieu of post-war Hong Kong. It posits that their contributions to Korean studies not only significantly advanced global Korean scholarship but also enriched the discourse surrounding modern Chinese intellectual and cultural history, particularly in relation to the preservation and transformation of cultural identity within diaspora contexts.
-
Keywords: Southern-coming intellectuals, Post-war Hong Kong, Korean historical studies, Cultural transmission, Chinese cultural preservation
Introduction
Hong Kong has historically maintained a scholarly interest in Korean studies, albeit with a more limited academic scope compared to other centers. Significant attention has been directed towards Korean studies across various cultural and socioeconomic domains. For instance, in May 2006, Lingnan University’s Asia-Pacific Research Center, supported by the Korea Foundation, hosted a conference entitled “Korea’s Future: Prospects and Challenges.”
1 Over the years, the academic community in Hong Kong has produced numerous works that provide valuable insights and findings on Korea.
The academic landscape of Hong Kong has long included experts in Korean studies, extending beyond scholars of Korean descent or native Korean speakers within its higher education institutions.
2 Many humanities researchers, including Jao Tsung-I (1917-2018), Lo Hsiang-lin (1906-1978) and Qian Mu (1895-1990), who migrated from mainland China post-war, concentrated on Korean cultural and historical subjects. Their interest in Korea was not incidental; rather, it was intertwined with their apprehensions regarding the decline of Chinese culture following the turmoil of war,
3 as well as the cultural atmosphere and intellectual trends prevalent in Hong Kong.
From the perspective of safeguarding Chinese cultural heritage, these scholars sought to comprehend the historical dissemination of Chinese culture and its implications. They viewed Korean culture as a case study of the reception and reinterpretation of Chinese culture, serving as a conduit for rediscovering the essence and spirit of Chinese culture while residing in Hong Kong, albeit with interpretations that may diverge from the original meanings of cultural transmission and reinterpretation in East Asia.
Consequently, while concentrating on their specialized fields, these scholars began to explore related Korean historical and cultural topics, regarding Korea as a significant overseas site for the transmission of Chinese culture. As Hong Kong was perceived as a cultural periphery by Republican China amidst the decline of Chinese culture, yet simultaneously represented a site of cultural inheritance, the relationship between China and Korea, along with Korea’s reception of Chinese culture, became, for these scholars based in Hong Kong, not merely academic inquiries but also reflections of their aspirations regarding contemporary Chinese cultural transmission. This article endeavors to elucidate the academic environment of Hong Kong and the contributions of these scholars, examining how their research on Korean history facilitated the construction of their vision of Chinese cultural inheritance.
The Formation of Post-War Academic Climate in Hong Kong
Yu Ying-shih余英時 (1930-2021) has remarked that the relationship between Hong Kong and Chinese academic research is a topic worthy of contemplation, yet it has not been adequately addressed.
4 He posited that Hong Kong, under colonial rule, was spared the ravages of revolutionary violence that repeatedly afflicted twentieth-century China. The transformation of traditional Chinese folk society into a modern civil society first manifested in this locale, with the development of Chinese humanistic studies being an integral aspect of Hong Kong’s social transformation.
5
Following World War II, the context for cultural inheritance and development in Hong Kong was closely linked to the establishment and growth of academic institutions. Notably, the Department of Chinese at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), founded in 1927, and New Asia College, established in 1949, played pivotal roles in advancing Chinese humanistic studies. The early development and direction of these institutions were inextricably connected to scholars’ subsequent interests in other Asian regions, including Korean history and culture.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, China was engulfed in conflict between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party, which ultimately escalated into civil war. Many Chinese intellectuals, apprehensive about the Communist Party’s opposition to and potential destruction of traditional Chinese culture,
6 opted to leave China for alternative locations. Given the political complexities surrounding both Taiwan, where the Nationalist government had relocated, and mainland China, many scholars chose to seek refuge in Hong Kong rather than follow Fu Ssu-nien 傅斯年 (1896-1950) and others to Taiwan. This migration has been characterized as “the southward migration of historical studies” or “the southward migration of northern learning.”
7
In contrast, under British colonial governance, the original colonial policy did not significantly impede educational endeavors, providing intellectuals with a relatively stable social environment and, consequently, greater opportunities for academic research. Furthermore, post-war Hong Kong emerged as the sole conduit for overseas scholars or institutions to gain insights into China, thereby serving as a bridge for academic exchange between East and West.
8
Pre-war Hong Kong was not held in high regard by Chinese intellectuals, particularly concerning its contributions to significant developments in Chinese culture and literature. In 1927, when Lu Xun 魯迅 (1881-1936) visited Hong Kong at the invitation of Zhao Jinsheng 趙今聲 (1903-2000), editor of Ta Kung Pao, his lectures “Voiceless China” 無聲的中國 and “The Old Tune Has Finished” 老調子已經唱完 criticized the futility of “clinging to old books” and the exploitation masquerading as respect for Chinese culture by foreigners.
9 This sentiment resonated with Hong Kong Governor Cecil Clementi’s (1875-1947) decision that same year to establish a Chinese curriculum at HKU, inviting Qing loyalist Lai Chi-hsi 賴際熙 (1865-1937) to design the programme.
10 For anti-traditionalists like Lu Xun, both Lai Chi-hsi and his curriculum were viewed unfavourably, perceiving Clementi’s promotion of Chinese studies as an attempt to counter the mainland’s New Culture Movement with traditional culture.
Clementi’s speech during a meeting with Lai Chi-hsi and Au Ta-tien 區大典 (1868-1937) emphasized his vision for Chinese education at HKU, which focused on reorganizing national heritage based on traditional scholarship. He articulated the paramount responsibility of the Chinese populace to preserve and curate China’s cultural heritage and historical narratives, asserting the immeasurable value of Chinese literature and historical accounts. However, he acknowledged the esoteric nature of the language, which rendered the profound insights within these works accessible only to a select few. Consequently, he noted an increasing call from Chinese academics for the “systematization of national heritage,” asserting that Hong Kong, separated from mainland China by a narrow body of water, was uniquely positioned to contribute to this endeavour. He expressed hope that the establishment of Chinese studies programmes would facilitate a more accessible path for future generations of researchers, thereby promoting the cultural brilliance of China.
11
The HKU Chinese programme established a curriculum grounded in traditional learning, encompassing classics, history, philosophy, literature, and translation. This model persisted even after the programme was restructured into a degree-offering Department of Chinese in 1929, with Lai and Au appointed as professors of Chinese history and classics, respectively.
12
The senior administration at HKU, led by Vice-Chancellor William Hornell (1878-1950), held a divergent perspective on the inheritance of traditional scholarship within the Chinese Department. They contended that the department’s medium of instruction and structure should align with other university departments. Hornell consistently advocated for the appointment of a department head proficient in English, capable of engaging with the international academic community, rather than someone solely entrenched in traditional Chinese learning.
Following Lai Chi-hsi’s retirement, Hornell actively sought a candidate who embodied his vision. He expressed a desire to appoint Hu Shih 胡適 (1891-1962), a distinguished scholar, to the position. When HKU conferred an honorary doctorate upon Hu Shih, they hoped he would accept the role of Head of the Chinese Department. However, Hu Shih graciously declined the offer, instead recommending a scholar fluent in both English and Cantonese to facilitate effective communication with the university administration.
13
The scholar he recommended was Hsu Ti-shan 許地山 (1894-1941), a graduate of Yenching University who had also studied in the United Kingdom, making him well-suited for the position. After graduating from Yenching, Hsu pursued further studies at Columbia University and Oxford University, obtaining degrees in literature. He taught at several universities, including Yenching, Peking, Tsinghua, and Taihoku Imperial. His extensive academic background garnered the approval of HKU’s administration, who invited him to lead the department and initiate curriculum reform.
14
Upon assuming the role of department head in 1935, Hsu Ti-shan reformed the Chinese Department in accordance with common practices of Sinological institutions in Europe and America.
15 He reorganized the College of Chinese Literature into the Department of Chinese Literature and History, restructuring departmental affairs to align with HKU’s management system. The department was divided into literature, history, philosophy, and translation groups, replacing Lai Chi-hsi’s curriculum based on traditional categories. Concurrently, he facilitated the retirements of traditional xiucai秀才 scholars such as Au Ta-tien, Lo Fu-tang 羅芾棠, and Tsui Pai-yüeh 崔百越, appointing instead scholars with modern educational backgrounds, including Chan Kwan-po 陳君葆 (1898-1982) and Ma Chien 馬鑑 (1882-1959). Although the reform did not significantly alter the Chinese Department’s marginal position within HKU, it laid the groundwork for the post-war department to accommodate a substantial influx of southern-coming intellectuals.
16
After World War II, with Hsu Ti-shan’s passing in 1941, Ma Chien was the only candidate available to assume leadership of the HKU Chinese Department. He concluded his duties at Southwest Yenching University and returned to HKU in 1946 to manage departmental affairs, collaborating with Chan Kwan-po, who had remained at the HKU Library, to reorganize the Chinese Department.
17 In 1950, Ho Kuang-chung 賀光中, who had previously worked at Jinling University, also arrived in Hong Kong to teach and served as acting department head following Ma Chien’s retirement, until the appointment of new department head Frederick Sequier Drake 林仰山 (1892-1974).
18 As acting head, Ho Kuang-chung enriched the HKU Chinese Department and supported New Asia College, which was founded in 1949. When Qian Mu, Tang Junyi, and others established New Asia College in Shamshuipo, Kowloon in 1949, operating from a single old tenement building amidst evident economic challenges, Ho repeatedly invited Qian Mu to teach part-time at HKU. Qian Mu declined and instead recommended Lo Hsiang-lin, who subsequently taught continuously in the HKU Chinese Department.
19 Shortly after Drake’s arrival, following Ho Kuang-chung’s original suggestion and Lo Hsiang-lin’s recommendation, he appointed Liu Bai-min 劉百閔 (1898-1969) and Jao Tsung-I as lecturer and assistant lecturer, respectively. With the increasing influx of southern-coming scholars and those from other regions, figures such as Tang Junyi (1908-1978), Liu Ruoyu 劉若愚 (1926-1986), Mou Zongsan 牟宗三 (1909-1995), G. E. Sargent, and Lo Chin T’ang 羅錦堂 served as full-time or part-time faculty, thereby enriching the department.
20 Concurrently, with support from the “Aid to Chinese Intellectuals Committee,”
21 HKU established the Institute of Oriental Studies in 1952, inviting scholars from various institutions as honorary research fellows to promote the establishment of a Chinese studies teaching and research institution in this British colony. The rapid post-war growth of the HKU Chinese Department can be attributed to the pre-war teaching reforms implemented by Hsu Ti-shan, Ma Chien, and others that modernized the department, as well as the influx of mainland scholars seeking teaching positions in Hong Kong due to the political climate. Additionally, with its relatively abundant resources, the HKU Chinese Department played a crucial role in supporting New Asia College, which emerged as another significant base for post-war Chinese scholarly research, a contribution that warrants recognition.
The establishment of New Asia College in Hong Kong and its academic influence has garnered scholarly attention.
22 The significance and aspirations of Qian Mu, Tang Junyi, and other New Asia scholars in founding New Asia College in Hong Kong reflect the potential for the practice of Chinese and Eastern cultural scholarship.
The establishment of the Asia Evening College of Arts and Commerce by Hsieh Yu-wei 謝幼偉 (1905-1976), Chang Chi-yun 張其昀 (1901-1985), and their contemporaries may not have initially been driven by a cultural mission. However, following Qian Mu’s leadership, the institution’s historical narrative underwent significant transformation. The “Admissions Prospectus” of New Asia College articulates an educational policy that seeks to “trace back to the spirit of Song-Ming academy scholarship, borrow from the European university tutorial system, and pursue humanistic educational aims to connect Eastern and Western cultures globally, thereby seeking future pathways for human peace and social well-being.”
23 This clearly delineates New Asia’s educational objective: to reformulate Chinese culture through a humanistic lens, utilizing the university framework to amplify Chinese cultural perspectives in global discourse.
The founding of New Asia College enabled scholars to transcend a purely Chinese viewpoint and adopt a broader Asian perspective. The institution’s name, “New Asia College,” embodies this idea, as does Hong Kong’s unique geographical and cultural position—simultaneously proximate to and distant from mainland China—serving as a confluence of diverse cultures and a conduit between China and the global community, a notion articulated by Tang Junyi as the “Asian concept.”
In his essay “The New Asia Spirit as I Understand It,” Tang Junyi elucidates that the term “New Asia” signifies a region that is smaller than the world yet larger than China, positioning Asia as an intermediary concept between the global and the national. He posits that the scholarly ethos of New Asia College is to engage with China’s national realities while also addressing global academic and cultural trends. The faculty at New Asia College endeavored to establish an educational and cultural ideal that reconciles China’s specific conditions with worldwide academic and cultural movements.
24
While some scholars, including Qian Mu, may not have fully identified with Hong Kong’s cultural milieu, they recognized the territory’s distinctive context, which facilitated the advancement of their educational and research initiatives, particularly in the preservation of Chinese culture. In his 1956 work “Current Educational Issues in Hong Kong,” Qian Mu remarked on the transformative changes occurring in Hong Kong amidst the backdrop of communist autocracy in mainland China, which was eroding traditional Chinese culture.
25 He noted that Hong Kong had evolved from a mere commercial port into a cultural and intellectual crossroads, advocating for a broader discourse on cultural traditions that transcends narrow nationalistic definitions. He expressed optimism that Hong Kong could serve as a fertile ground for idealistic education, fostering meaningful East-West cultural exchanges.
From this perspective, it is evident that the founding of New Asia College was motivated by scholars seeking refuge from communism while simultaneously striving to preserve Chinese culture. Although Hong Kong was primarily a commercial hub, it provided not only political asylum but also a vibrant environment for cultural interaction, thereby broadening the scholars’ academic horizons beyond traditional Chinese studies to encompass Eastern culture and East-West cultural exchanges. Consequently, the initial establishment of literature, history, and philosophy departments at New Asia College included courses on both Chinese and Western cultural histories and philosophies. The hiring of scholars such as Tao Zhenyu 陶振譽 (d. 1986), an expert in Japanese history, and Chen Jinghe 陳荊和 (1917-1995), a specialist in Southeast Asian history, further exemplified the practical application of the “New Asia” concept and fostered interest in Asian studies among Hong Kong scholars.
In the aftermath of World War II, intellectuals faced political instability and struggled to find suitable places for their academic pursuits. Hong Kong, amidst its complex political landscape, offered a relatively stable environment, attracting scholars from the mainland. The successful reorganization of the Chinese Department at the University of Hong Kong by Hsu Ti-shan in 1935 created an academic space conducive to the development of Chinese history education, allowing post-war department heads to enhance the department’s character through the influx of scholars from the south. This environment enabled these scholars to continue their work in cultural transmission and contributed to the establishment and growth of private institutions like New Asia College. Thus, post-war Hong Kong emerged as an academic center for the preservation of Chinese and Eastern culture, distinguished from contemporary Taiwan or Southeast Asian academia by its unique cultural amalgamation and the presence of scholars committed to cultural missions, who could engage in teaching and research without the encumbrance of political complexities.
South-coming Intellectuals’ Angle on Korean History and Culture
The context of southern-coming intellectuals and the academic environment in Hong Kong during the early 1950s reveals that scholars primarily concentrated on their areas of expertise, addressing numerous unresolved issues in Chinese literature, history, and philosophy. However, a closer examination of the works produced by Hong Kong scholars indicates a notable interest in Korean studies. The earliest relevant paper was authored by Lo Hsiang-lin, whose article “The Transmission of Tang Poetry to Korea” was notably written at the University of Hong Kong.
26 This highlights an important aspect: these scholars of Chinese literature and history were also afforded opportunities to explore other Eastern cultures, a pursuit closely linked to Hong Kong’s role as a conduit for the reception and dissemination of Chinese culture.
For these scholars, the study of Korea in Hong Kong served as a means to comprehend the inheritance of Chinese cultural traditions in foreign contexts, informed by historical and cultural exchanges between China and Korea. The first phase of this investigation focuses on the initial cohort of post-war southern-coming scholars in Hong Kong, including Lo Hsiang-lin, Qian Mu, Jao Tsung-I, Lo Chin T’ang 羅錦堂, and Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望 (1916-1996). Although some of these scholars later departed Hong Kong for other positions, they all shared the experience of witnessing the transformations in mainland China while in Hong Kong and expressed concern over the crisis facing traditional Chinese culture. They aspired to contribute to the cultural transmission through their scholarly endeavors, collectively recognizing Korea as a significant destination in the outward diffusion of Chinese culture, with the process of cultural inheritance in foreign lands becoming a focal point of their attention.
Lo Hsiang-lin
Lo Hsiang-lin, who succeeded Frederick Drake as head of the Department of Chinese at the University of Hong Kong, had a diverse academic background, having studied at National Tsinghua University and the Yenching University Research Institute. After returning to Guangdong and holding various academic positions, he relocated to Hong Kong following the regime change. In Hong Kong, he contributed to New Asia College and later the University of Hong Kong, where he later served as department head and Chair Professor. His research encompassed a wide range of topics,
27 including Hakka studies,
28 overseas Chinese history and Sino-foreign relations,
29 resulting in numerous publications that significantly advanced Hong Kong’s historical studies.
30
In 1960, Lo participated in a Chinese-Japanese-Korean academic conference organized by Li Ji and supported by the Harvard-Yenching Institute’s East Asian Academic Research Planning Committee.
31 His conference paper, “Achievements and Trends Related to Hong Kong and East Asian Academic Research in the Past Three Years,”
32 underscored Hong Kong’s pivotal role in East Asian academic research and his engagement with materials from other East Asian nations. In 1967, he authored “The Transmission of Tang Poetry to Korea” for the revived
Dongfang zazhi,
33 later republishing it in his own essays collection.
34 Lo articulated that his academic pursuits aimed “to benefit the great spirit of the nation’s peaceful unification and prosperity,” emphasizing the importance of scholarship in addressing national concerns. His exploration of the transmission of Tang poetry to Korea illustrates a pathway of Chinese cultural dissemination and highlights the historical significance of cultural exchanges, affirming the enduring value of Chinese culture in both historical and contemporary global cultural dialogues.
Lo’s article on the transmission of Tang poetry to Korea reflects this scholarly spirit, asserting the profound mutual relationship between China and Korea, which is recognized by scholars in both nations and those interested in Eastern culture. He contended that the study of Tang poetry’s transmission to Korea exemplifies the deep academic and cultural connections between the two countries. His research not only examined the achievements of Tang poetry but also the shared historical and emotional ties between China and Korea, emphasizing the importance of scholarly relationships across regions.
Lo utilized research findings from various Korean historical scholars such as Yi Nae-yang 李廼揚 and Yi Byeong-do 李丙燾 (1896-1989) to contextualize the relations between the Korean Peninsula and the Tang court during the Tang Dynasty. The content of Tang poetry and the biographies of poets referenced in his paper were primarily derived from the Quan Tangshi 全唐詩 (The Complete Tang Poems), illustrating how Korean envoys or scholars became acquainted with Tang poetry through this compilation. He specifically noted that the primary transmission of Tang poetry occurred through Silla envoys returning to their homeland and interactions between monks and Tang envoys to Silla. He also highlighted the significance of Ch’oe Ch’i-wŏn 崔致遠 (b. 857) in the exchange between China and Korea and the transmission of Tang poetry, expressing a desire to further investigate Choi’s historical contributions in future research.
Although Lo did not employ Korean historical sources such as Samguk Sagi 三國史記 or Samguk Yusa 三國遺事 at that time, relying instead on materials published in China to document the transmission of Tang poetry, the structure and content of his paper focused on the regional differences in East Asia and the role of Silla literati in the dissemination of Tang poetry. Given the academic constraints of the 1960s, when scholarly exchanges were not as accessible as they are today, his findings were particularly insightful, reflecting his approach to elucidating the characteristics and evolution of Chinese cultural transmission. This inadvertently showcased a research perspective in which different cultures reference and inform one another, set against the backdrop of Hong Kong’s unique cultural landscape, which merges Eastern and Western influences, thereby establishing Hong Kong’s distinct identity within the realm of overseas Korean studies.
Yan Gengwang
Another prominent southern-coming scholar in Hong Kong, Yan Gengwang, is well-regarded for his contributions to Chinese medieval history and historical geography. After studying at Wuhan University with Qian Mu and serving as a researcher at the Qilu University Institute of Chinese Studies,
35 Yan worked at the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, before joining the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the New Asia Research Institute in the 1960s. He played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for Chinese history education and research in Hong Kong, particularly in the areas of Tang history and historical geography. Yan’s publications, including
Study of Transportation Maps in the Tang Dynasty,
36 Tables of Tang Dynasty Servants, Ministers and Officials,
37 and
Collected Essays on Tang History Research,
38 are essential resources for contemporary scholars investigating Tang history.
Collected Essays provides a comprehensive examination of various aspects of the Tang dynasty’s political systems, historical material organization, and geographical issues, influencing many scholars to engage in research on medieval and Tang history.
However, it is often overlooked that Yan authored an article titled “Silla Students and Monks in Tang China,” which appears in his
Collected Essays.
39 The initial draft was published in 1955, with a subsequent version released in Taiwan in 1959, while the most commonly referenced version was supplemented during Yan’s tenure at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the New Asia Research Institute.
This article exemplifies meticulous scholarship through its comprehensive synthesis of Chinese and Korean historical sources. Yan drew from Chinese dynastic records including the “Silla Chronicles” 新羅傳 in both
the Old and New Tang Histories 新舊唐書,
the Complete Tang Literature 全唐文, and the
Tang Hui Yao 唐會要. He balanced these with Korean sources such as the
Samguk sagi, Samguk yusa, Tongsagangmok 東史綱目,
Tongmun sŏn 東文選, and Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s Kyewŏn p'ilgyŏng chip 桂苑筆耕集. Notably, Yan accessed these Korean materials during his research fellowship at the Harvard-Yenching Institute.
40 His methodological approach was groundbreaking for its time, demonstrating remarkable scholarly foresight in two aspects: first, in his balanced utilization of both Chinese and Korean primary sources, and second, in establishing a methodological framework for studying Sino-Korean cultural exchanges through Chinese-language scholarship. This dual achievement significantly advanced the field of East Asian cultural history.
Yan discusses the circumstances of Silla students sent to Chang’an during that period, noting that ninety students successfully passed the imperial examinations. Yan identified twenty-three individuals whose names could be verified and meticulously examined their accomplishments, with Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn’s case receiving the most detailed attention. He also highlighted the numerous Silla scholars who registered for the imperial examinations and the poems that many Chinese poets composed for their Silla friends upon their return.
The second part of the article explores how, following the introduction of Buddhism to the Korean Peninsula in the fourth century, student monks traveled to Chang’an, the Buddhist center of the time, to study Buddhism, facilitated by the close relationship between Silla and the Tang Dynasty.
41 Yan noted that Silla monks established a Buddhist temple in Dengzhou, Shandong, known as Fahwa Temple, or Silla Temple at that time. He referenced Yijing’s “Biographies of Eminent Monks Who Sought the Dharma in the Western Regions of the Great Tang Dynasty” and other historical sources to illustrate that monks from Silla and Goguryeo also ventured into the Western Regions after entering Tang. Yan’s paper demonstrates that Silla student monks studying Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty not only contributed to the dissemination of Buddhism to the Korean Peninsula but also significantly aided the development of Buddhism within the Tang Dynasty, filling many gaps in the history of Tang Buddhism.
Yan considered both the academic environment and the development of Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty that attracted Silla students and monks to travel westward for their studies in Central China. He also pointed out that figures like Ch’oe Ch’iwŏn and Silla monks who ventured to the Western Regions contributed to certain cultural advancements within the Tang Dynasty. Yan’s perspective on cultural exchange between China and Korea acknowledged the influence of Silla students and monks on Chinese culture, reflecting a research approach that considers both sides rather than favoring one.
Lo Chin T’ang
Lo Chin T’ang, recognized as the first literature doctorate awarded by the Nationalist government after its relocation to Taiwan, studied under Zheng Qian 鄭騫 (1901-1991) at Taiwan Normal University.
42 Following the attainment of his doctorate, Lo was invited by Qian Mu to serve as a visiting professor at New Asia College and subsequently joined the University of Hong Kong as a lecturer in the Chinese Department, specializing in poetry, drama, and other facets of Chinese literature.
43 In 1966, he accepted an invitation from the University of Hawaii, concluding his teaching tenure at the University of Hong Kong and embarking on an academic career in the United States,
44 where he made significant contributions to local Sinological education.
Among his numerous research accomplishments, Lo discovered that an important Korean language textbook from the Joseon Dynasty,
Pak T’ongsa 朴通事 quoted from
Plain Tales of Journey to the West, prompting him to investigate this connection and publish an article in HKU's
Oriental Culture.
45 Although he had already transitioned to the University of Hawaii at that time, he explicitly stated his previous affiliation as a lecturer at HKU, underscoring his personal connection to the work.
The paper, composed in English, elucidated how the Ming Dynasty novelist Wu Cheng’en adapted the experiences of the prominent Tang Dynasty monk Xuanzang’s 玄奘 (602-664) quest for dharma in India into the narrative of “Journey to the West.” Lo initially introduced the story and historical context of Xuanzang’s journey to India, subsequently explaining how Xuanzang’s narrative evolved from a Buddhist academic history of acquiring Buddhist scriptures into legendary tales and poetic discourses during the Song Dynasty. In the Yuan Dynasty, it was further transformed into a dramatic adaptation by Wu.
The works of Wu Changling 吳昌齡 and Yang Jingxian 楊景賢 were foundational, yet by the time Wu Cheng’en 吳承恩 (1506-582) composed Journey to the West during the Ming Dynasty, the narrative had evolved significantly, integrating a multitude of intricate new elements. This evolution led scholar Lo to hypothesize that prior to the mid-Ming period, there existed related materials that informed the text. Collaborating with scholars from the United States, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, Lo uncovered references to Plain Tales of Journey to the West within Pak T’ongsa ŏnhae 朴通事諺解. He observed that this text included a discussion regarding the acquisition of books, wherein Plain Tales was among those purchased, indicating that readers and merchants on the Korean Peninsula during the late Yuan and early Ming periods had already recognized this work in their collections. Notably, Pak T’ongsa ŏnhae provided a thorough introduction to Plain Tales.
Lo’s research underscores the necessity of incorporating Korean materials in the study of Chinese literature, as they can fill significant gaps in the understanding of Chinese literary development. Although scholars in Hong Kong have not systematically organized various aspects of Korean studies, they frequently integrate Korean materials into their research, driven by the relevance of Korean historical sources or the demands of their specific fields of inquiry.
Qian Mu
Qian Mu, a prominent figure in intellectual history, historiography, cultural history, and Qin-Han history, particularly through his work “New Case Studies on Master Zhu Xi,” which chronicles the evolution of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, also contributed to the discourse on the transmission of Zhu Xi’s teachings to Korea. In his article “Researching Zhu’s Remnants,” Qian Mu highlighted the engagement of Korean scholars with Zhu’s teachings, positing that such investigations could elucidate the dissemination of Zhu’s thought in Korea. He focused on four key figures: Yi Hwang 李滉 (1501-1570), Yi I 李珥 (1536-1584), Song Si-yŏl 宋時烈 (1607-1689) and Han Wŏn-jin 韓元震 (1682-1751) to delineate the trajectory of Zhu’s learning in Korea. Although Qian Mu acknowledged his limited exploration of Korean history, his insights into Zhu Xi’s teachings rendered his analysis of these four Neo-Confucian scholars valuable.
46
Qian Mu’s interest in Korean Confucianism was sparked during a lecture visit to Seoul in 1974,
47 where he was invited by the Graduate School of Education at Yonsei University to present on “Educational Traditions in Chinese History” 中國歷史上의 教育的傳統. His visit garnered significant attention from local academia, resulting in the translation of many of his works and a surge of research on Qian Mu in subsequent years.
48 His engagement with Korean scholars facilitated the exchange of ideas and the acquisition of works by several Chosŏn scholars, enhancing his understanding of their interpretations of Zhu Xi’s teachings.
In his examination of the academic contributions of T’oegye 退溪 and the other three figures, Qian Mu systematically organized their theories and elucidated the distinctions among them, particularly regarding the evolution of Zhu Xi’s teachings following their transmission to Korea and the reasons for the esteem in which Korean Confucians held Yulgok. While these studies were well understood within Korean academia, they held considerable historical significance for Chinese scholars, especially those in Hong Kong, as they illuminated the relevance of Korean materials and Confucian development to the evolution of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism.
49 As university libraries in Hong Kong increasingly acquired Korean collected works and historical materials, Qian Mu's initial endeavors received substantial recognition.
Jao Tsung-I, recognized for his extensive academic pursuits across various domains, including historical inquiry, oracle bones, bamboo slips, classical studies, religion, historiography,
50 and more, also contributed to the discourse on the development of Korean Confucianism. At the 9th International Conference on T’oegye Studies held at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1987, Jao presented a paper titled “An Interpretation of T’oegye’s Four Beginnings and Seven Emotions Dividing Principle and Material Force.”
51 The objective of Jao’s article was to affirm T’oegye’s pivotal role in the eastward transmission of Zhu Xi’s teachings and the advancement of Korean Neo-Confucianism. He articulated that T’oegye’s theory of principle and material force constituted the essence of his thought, rooted in Zhu Xi’s philosophy. Jao elucidated Zhu Xi’s dualism of principle and material force, emphasizing the primacy of principle over material force, and subsequently illustrated how T’oegye synthesized these concepts, asserting that he “combined principle and material force into one, developing them as neither mixing nor separating.”
52 Through the framework of the Four Beginnings and Seven Emotions, Jao further explicated T’oegye’s assertion that “the Four Beginnings emanate purely from principle, hence are always good; the Seven Emotions emanate with material force, hence can be good or evil.”
Although Jao Tsung-I’s research did not represent a groundbreaking interpretation at the time, his clear and concise exposition of Yi T’oegye’s perspectives on the relationship between principle and material force, as well as the Four Beginnings and Seven Emotions, provided valuable insights for both Hong Kong and later Korean scholars. Despite his lack of prior specific research on Korean Neo-Confucianism, Jao’s reinterpretation of T’oegye’s teachings from a Hong Kong scholarly perspective proved enlightening and may have illuminated previously overlooked aspects for contemporaneous scholars in the field. Jao’s approach reflected the perspectives of southern-coming scholars, positioning T’oegye as a master who interpreted Zhu Xi’s teachings following their eastward transmission, and understanding T’oegye’s ideas within the context of Chinese Confucian development. While this viewpoint may diverge from the trajectories of typical Neo-Confucian researchers, it represents a significant contribution of overseas scholars to the study of Korean Confucianism.
The scholarly engagement of southern-coming intellectuals with Korean history and culture reveals a multifaceted approach that transcended conventional academic boundaries. Their work demonstrates that Korean studies in post-war Hong Kong was not merely a peripheral academic pursuit but a strategic intellectual endeavor that served both scholarly and cultural purposes. By examining how Chinese cultural elements were transmitted, adapted, and preserved in Korea, these scholars simultaneously reaffirmed the vitality of Chinese traditions and developed nuanced understandings of cross-cultural exchanges in East Asia.
Their collective research—ranging from Lo Hsiang-lin’s examination of Tang poetry transmission to Jao Tsung-I’s interpretation of T’oegye’s Neo-Confucian thought—formed a distinctive scholarly perspective shaped by their unique position in Hong Kong’s cultural landscape. This perspective was characterized by a dialectical approach that viewed Korean culture both as evidence of Chinese cultural influence and as a repository of traditional elements that were being threatened in mainland China.
Ultimately, these scholars’ contributions to Korean studies exemplify how intellectual diaspora communities can forge innovative academic pathways that bridge cultural traditions while responding to contemporary challenges of cultural preservation and identity formation. Their work not only enriched Hong Kong’s academic environment but also established an important foundation for future East Asian cultural studies that recognized the complex interrelationships between Chinese traditions and their manifestations in neighboring societies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article explores the contributions of southern-coming scholars in the 1950s to the development of Hong Kong’s humanistic research climate, focusing on the early scholarly endeavors of figures such as Qian Mu, Lo Hsiang-lin, Lo Chin T’ang and Jao Tsung-I in relation to Korean history and culture. These distinguished scholars, who held academic positions in Hong Kong, sought to utilize Korean history as a case study to comprehend the transmission of Chinese culture, aligning with the broader academic objectives of that era: to revitalize and disseminate Chinese culture in a foreign context. Their research illustrates the methodologies and impacts of Chinese cultural transmission and posits that Korean history serves as a valuable reference for understanding Chinese historical development.
Rather than solely concentrating on the histories of Asia and other nations, these scholars engaged in a reflective examination of the transformations within Chinese culture through the lens of their studies on Asia and Korea. While contemporary perspectives on Chinese and East Asian studies may present challenges regarding peripheral views of China, it is essential to contextualize their scholarly pursuits within the social and academic norms of the 1950s. After relocating from the mainland to Hong Kong—a locale characterized by increasing East-West exchanges and abundant resources—these scholars encountered not only the vast expanse of Chinese history but also the intricacies of Korean history.
Beyond merely expanding their academic horizons, these scholars perceived Korea as a cultural space through which they could trace the branches and leaves of Chinese culture in foreign lands, paralleling their efforts to preserve Chinese culture while residing in Hong Kong. This aspect of their research merits emphasis, as it may have been overlooked by previous scholars focusing on overseas Korean studies or the academic history of Hong Kong.
The investigations of Korean history and culture by these southern-coming scholars not only made significant contributions to the global scholarship on Korea but also enriched the broader discourse surrounding modern Chinese intellectual and cultural history, particularly in relation to the preservation and transformation of cultural identity within diaspora contexts. Their scholarship underscores the importance of Korea-focused research in shaping Hong Kong’s post-war intellectual landscape and highlights the unique role of Hong Kong within the broader framework of global Korean studies.
Notes
REFERENCES
- Bao Shaolin 鮑紹霖, Huang Zhaoqiang 黃兆強, and Ou Zhijian 區志堅, eds. Beixue nanyi: Gang Tai wenshi zhe suyuan (wenhua juan) 北學南移——港台文史哲溯源 (文化卷). Taibei: Xiuwei zixun keji, 2015.
- Chou, Grace Ai-ling. Confucianism, Colonialism, and the Cold War: Chinese Cultural Education at Hong Kong's New Asia College, 1949-63. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
- “Daxue jueding zengshhe huawenke” 大學決定增設華文科. Xianggang gongshang ribao 香港工商日報 (June 25, 1927): 3.
- “Dazhuan she zhuanti jiangzuo Luo Jintang boshi qu de teyou fengge” 大專社專題演講 羅錦堂博士講曲的特有風格. Huaqiao ribao 華僑日報, April 8, 1962, sec. 3, p. 2.
- Deng Jiayang 鄧家洋. “Luo Xianglin xueshu chengguo yanjiu huigu yu pingjie” 羅香林學術成果研究回顧與評述. Shumu jikan 書目季刊 57, no. 1 (June 2023): 109-133.
- Fang Jun 方駿. “Lai Jixi de Gangda suiyue” 賴際熙的港大歲月. Dongya Hanxue yanjiu 東亞漢學研究 2 (April 2012): 282-293.
- “Gang da jiangshi Luo Jintang boshi jiang fu Xiaweiye daxue jiangxue” 港大講師羅錦堂博士 將赴夏威夷大學講學. Huaqiao ribao 華僑日報, August 14, 1966, sec. 3, p. 3.
- Gao Weinong 高偉濃 and Wang Guoqiang 王國強. “Luo Xianglin dui Zhongwai guanxi shi he huaqiao shi de yanjiu” 羅香林對中外關係史和華僑史的研究. Jinan xuebao (Zhexue shehui kexue) 暨南學報（哲學社會科學） 25, no. 5 (September 2003): 108-116.
- “Hanguo xuezhe yi Qian xiaozhang zhuzuo” 韓國學者迻譯錢校長著作. Xinya shenghuo 新亞生活 5, no. 16 (March 1963): 8.
- Hu Shi 胡適. Hu Shi de shengyin (1919-1960): Hu Shi yanjiang ji 胡適的聲音（1919-1960）：胡適演講集. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2005.
- Hu Shi 胡適. Nanyou zayi 南遊雜憶. Hong Kong: Lingnan chubanshe, 1959.
- Huang Xiuzheng 黃秀政, Li Zhaorong 李昭容, and Guo Jialing 郭佳玲. “Luo Xianglin yu Kejia yanjiu” 羅香林與客家研究. Xingda lishi xuebao 興大歷史學報 18 (June 2007): 291-314.
- “Jao Tsung-i jiaoshou xueyi nianbiao” 饒宗頤教授學藝年表. Accessed March 11, 2025. http://www.jaotipe.hku.hk/jaoti/jao_resume.
- Li Jinqiang 李金強. “Minguo shixue nanyi: Zuo Shunsheng shengping yu Xianggang shixue” 民國史學南移----左舜生生平與香港史學. Xianggang Zhongguo jinhua shixue hui huikan 香港中國近化史學會會刊 3 (1989): 85-97.
- Liao Boyuan 廖伯源. “Yan Gengwang xiansheng xue xing shilüe” 嚴耕望先生學行事略.
- Lin Li. “Education, Culture and Politics: The Evolution of Chinese Education at the University of Hong Kong, 1911-1941.” History of Education 46:6 (2017): 711-729.
- Lin Shaoyang. “Hong Kong in the Midst of Colonialism, Collaborative and Critical Nationalism from 1925 to 1930: The Perspective of Lu Xun and the Confucius Revering Movement.” China Report 54.1 (2018): 25-47.
- Lin Youlan 林友蘭. “Luo Xianglin de zhixue ji zhuzuo” 羅香林的治學及著作. Shumu jikan 書目季刊 1, no. 2 (December 1966): 89-92.
- Lingnan University. Lingnan University Annual Report 2005/06. Hong Kong: Office of Communications and Public Affairs, Lingnan University, 2006.
- Liu Shu-hsien 劉述先. Lun rujia zhexue de san ge da shidai 論儒家哲學的三個大時代. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 2007.
- Lo Chin T’ang. “Clues Leading to the Discovery of Hsi Yu Chi P’ing-hua.” Journal of Oriental Studies 7.2 (1969): 176-194.
- Lu Weiluan 盧瑋鑾. “Xu Dishan yu Xianggang daxue Zhongwen xi de gaige” 許地山與香港大學中文系的改革. Xianggang wenxue 香港文學 80 (August 1991): 60-64.
- Lu Weiluan 盧瑋鑾. “Yi tu hushu wangshi: ji Chen Junbao xiansheng” 一徒護書往事——記陳君葆先生. Mingbao yuekan 明報月刊 32, no. 12 (December 1997): 77-79.
- “Luo Jintang rong huo guochan wenxue boshi” 羅錦堂榮獲國產文學博士. Huaqiao ribao 華僑日報, February 12, 1961, sec. 1, p. 3.
- Luo Jintang 羅錦堂. “Xiaweiyi daxue de hanxue yanjiu” 夏威夷大學的漢學研究. Hanxue yanjiu tongxun 漢學研究通訊 1, no. 3 (July 1982): 101-102.
- Luo Leran 羅樂然. “Wenhua nanlai yu Xinjiapo huawen jiaoyu de xingsu: yi Xianggang daxue yu Mada (Xinda) Zhongwen xi guanxi wei yanjiu gean” 文化南來與新加坡華文教育的形塑——以香港大學與馬大（新大）中文系關係為研究個案. Jiaoyu xuebao 教育學報 14, no. 3 (June 2018): 111-119.
- Luo Xianglin 羅香林 “fei Tai chuxi Zhong Ri Han xueshu huiyi” 羅香林飛台出席中日韓學術會議. Xianggang gongshang ribao 香港工商日報 (November 1, 1960): 7.
- Luo Xianglin 羅香林. “San nian lai Xianggang yu Dongya xueshu yanjiu youguan zhi chengjiu yu quxiang” 三年來香港與東亞學術研究有關之成就與趨向. In Dongya xueshu yanjiu weiyuanhui Zhong Ri Han di yi ci huiyi huiyi baogao 東亞學術研究委員會中日韓第一次會議會議報告, edited by Zhongguo Dongya xueshu yanjiu jihua weiyuanhui 中國東亞學術研究計劃委員會, 125-130. Taipei: Zhongguo Dongya xueshu yanjiu jihua weiyuanhui, 1961.
- Luo Xianglin 羅香林. “Tang shi de chuanbo yu Hanguo” 唐詩的傳播於韓國. Dongfang zazhi 東方雜誌 1, no. 4 (October 1967): 50-55.
- Luo Xianglin 羅香林. “Tang shi yu Zhong-Han wenhua jiaoliu de guanxi” 唐詩與中韓文化交流的關係. In Zhongguo wenhua luncong: Yitang wen wai 中國文化論叢——乙堂文外, 98-115. Hong Kong: Zhongguo xueshe, 1967.
- Qian Mu 錢穆. “Dangqian de Xianggang jiaoyu wenti” 當前的香港教育問題. In Wenhua yu jiaoyu 文化與教育, 362-366. Taipei: Lianjing chubanshe, 1994.
- Qian Mu 錢穆, translated by Yi Chongch’an 李鍾燦. Chungguk munhwasa 중국문화사. Seoul: Tongmunsa 東文社, 1986.
- Qian Mu 錢穆, translated by Ch’oe Hŏnsu 秋憲樹. Chungguk-ŭi yŏksa chŏngsin 중국의 歷史精神. Seoul: Yŏndae ch’ulp’ansa 연대출판부, 1977.
- Qian Mu 錢穆, translated by Ch'a Chuhwan 車柱環. Chungguk munhwasa toron: Chungguk munsachŏllon중국文化史導論：中國文史哲論. Seoul: Ŭl-yu Munhwasa 乙酉文化社, 1984.
- Qian Mu 錢穆. “Xinya shuyuan, yi” 新亞書院 (一). In Bashi han shuangqin shiyou za yi hekan 八十憾雙親師友雜憶合刊. Beijing: Jiuzhou chubanshe, 2011.
- Qian Mu 錢穆. “Zhaosheng jianchang jielu” 招生簡章節錄. In Xinya yiduo 新亞遺鐸, 3. Taipei: Dongda tushu, 1989.
- Qian Mu 錢穆. “Zhuzi xue liuyan Hanguo kao” 朱子學流衍韓國考. Xinya xuebao 新亞學報 12 (August 1977): 1-69.
- Rao Zongyi 饒宗頤. “T’oegye sadan ch'ilchŏng pun igi sŏ ch'anŭi” 退溪四端七情分理氣書闡義. T’oegye hakpo 退溪學報 58 (September 1988): 40-43.
- Tang Junyi 唐君毅. “Wo suo liaojie zhi xinya jingshen” 我所了解之新亞精神. Xinya xiaobao 新亞校刊 1 (June 1952): 2.
- “Tuixi xue xueshu huiyi jinqi zai Zhongda juxing” 退溪學學術會議今起在中大舉行. Ta Kung Pao 大公報, January 26, 1987, 7.
- Wang Hongzhi 王宏志. “‘Jielai de tudi, jie lai de shijian’: Xianggang wei nanlai de wenhuaren suo tigong de teshu wenhua kongjian, shangpian” 「借來的土地，借來的時間」：香港為南來的文化人所提供的特殊文化空間 (上篇). In Shuanglong tuyan: Hu Gang wenhua jiaoliu yu hudong 雙龍吐艷：滬港文化交流與互動, edited by Liang Yuansheng 梁元生 and Wang Hongzhi 王宏志, 109-144. Hong Kong: Xianggang Zhongwen daxue Xianggang Yatai yanjiusuo, 2005.
- “Xu Dishan xiansheng shengping shilüe” 許地山先生生平事略. In Zhuidao Xu Dishan xiansheng jinian tekan 追悼許地山先生紀念特刊, edited by Quangang wenhuajie zhuidao Xu Dishan xiansheng dahui choubei hui 全港文化界追悼許地山先生大會籌備會, 1-2. Hong Kong: Quangang wenhuajie zhuidao Xu Dishan xiansheng dahui choubei hui, 1941.
- Xu Zhenxing 許振興. “Bei xue nan yi yu Xianggang daxue” 北學南移與香港大學. In Bei xue nan yi: Gang-Tai wenshi zhe suyuan, wenhua juan 北學南移——港台文史哲溯源 (文化卷), edited by Bao Shaolin 鮑紹霖, Huang Zhaoqiang 黃兆強, and Ou Zhijian 區志堅, 181-182.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. Qian Mu Binsi xiansheng yu wo 錢穆賓四先生與我. Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1992.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. “Tang Song shidai Zhong-Han fojiao wenhua zhi jiaoliu” 唐宋時代中韓佛教文化之交流. Pumen xuebao 普門學報 55 (January 2010): 80-108.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. Tang dai jiaotong tu kao 唐代交通圖考. Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1985.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. Tang pu shang cheng lang biao 唐僕尚丞郎表. Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan lishi yuyan yanjiusuo, 1985.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. Tang shi yanjiu conggao 唐史研究叢稿. Hong Kong: Xinya yanjiusuo, 1969.
- Yan Gengwang 嚴耕望. “Xinluo liu Tang xuesheng yu sengtu” 新羅留唐學生與僧徒. In Tang shi yanjiu conggao 唐史研究叢稿, 425-481. Hong Kong: Xinya yanjiusuo, 1969.
- Yu Ying-shih 余英時. “Xianggang yu Zhongguo xueshu yanjiu” 香港與中國學術研究 17 (1993): 4-7.
- Yung, Kenneth Kai-Chung. “China’s Intellectuals and Chinese Culture in Hong Kong.” In Hong Kong History, edited by Man-Kong Wong and Chi-Man Kwong, 137-155. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.
- Zhao Qina 趙綺娜. “Lengzhan yu nanmin yuanzhu: Meiguo ‘Yuanzhu Zhongguo zhishiren shi xiehui,’ yijiuwuer nian zhi yijiuwujiu nian” 冷戰與難民援助：美國「援助中國知識人士協會」, 一九五二年至一九五九年. Oumei yanjiu 歐美研究 27, no. 2 (June 1997): 65-108.
