Page:Eminent Chinese Of The Ch’ing Period - Hummel - 1943 - Vol. 1.pdf/421

Rh conduct are possibly based on a diary attributed to Ching-shan 景善 (1823–1900), a retired official who was murdered by his son shortly after the Allies entered Peking. The diary was found by an Englishman, presumably E. Backhouse, on August 18, 1900, in the courtyard of Ching-shan when the residence of that official was about to be burned by Sikhs. The document purports to relate the events of the fateful days from May to August 1900. It was translated into English and published in 1910 in Bland and Backhouse, China Under the Empress Dowager. In 1924 a new translation, made by J. J. L. Duyvendak, was published, together with the Chinese text taken from the original document preserved in the British Museum. Recently, however, the diary has been shown, by Dr. Duyvendak and others, to be a forgery compiled from various sources by one or more persons. According to Chin-liang (see under ), who took an active part in editing the official history of the Ch'ing Dynasty, Ch'ing-shih-kao (characters in Yu T'ung), the motive of those who fabricated the document was to make Jung-lu appear as a friend of foreigners and so clear him of any responsibility in connection with the attack on the Legations. In his miscellany, entitled 四朝佚聞 Ssŭ-ch'ao i-wên (1936), Chin-liang states that he had intended to include in the Official History a biography of Ching-shan, because of the latter's wide fame as the writer of the diary, but that a closer examination of the diary disclosed so many errors and discrepancies that he concluded to omit the sketch. A comparison of the diary with known memorials shows that many statements in it which criticize the Boxers and favor foreigners were culled from those memorials and put into the mouth of Jung-lu. In Chin-liang's opinion, friends or adherents of Jung-lu, anticipating that the wrath of the foreign powers would fall upon him, forged the diary in order to clear him—and then placed it where observant foreigners would find it.

Chin-liang draws attention to a letter written by Tung Fu-hsiang to Jung-lu in which Tung complains that though Jung-lu ordered him to attack the foreigners, when punishment was finally demanded, he shifted the responsibility to Tung alone. Wang Yen-wei (see under ) who was in Peking in 1900 and who, as a secretary of the Grand Council, followed the Court to Sian, characterized Jung-lu as talented, but dangerous, treacherous, and covetous. These characterizations are hard to reconcile with the amiable figure portrayed in Ching-shan's diary, but they fit the character of one who may have ordered the compilation of such a diary. It cannot truthfully be said that Jung-lu was a great statesman, or that he ever pretended to be. He was more concerned with personal wealth and position than with national affairs. He owed his rise to power, not primarily to great personal merits, but to the favors he received from I-hsin and from Empress Hsiao-ch'in. The former regarded him as a protégé and the latter as a favorite and an obedient tool. Though during the years 1898-1903 he might have exercised a salutary influence in the government, he failed to use his power to further either the interests of the nation or of the ruling house.

Jung-lu was the father of the wife of the second Prince Ch'un, whose name was Tsai-fêng (see under ), and he was the maternal grandfather of P'u-i (see under ).

[1/443/1a; 2/57/33b; 6/1/19b (mistaken in date of Jung-lu's death); Shih-tu chung-chên lu; Fan Tsêng-hsiang 樊增祥, 樊山集 Fan-shan chi 23/92a; Morse, H. B., The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (1918), vols. II, III; Chin-shih jên-wu chih (see under ) p. 207; Wên Kung-chih 文公直, 最近三十年中國軍事史 Tsui-chin san-shih-nien Chung-kuo chün-shih shih (1930); 逸經 I-ching, no. 22, pp. 25–28; 人文 Jên-wên, vol. II, nos. 5, 10, vol. III, nos. 5, 7; Tung-hua lu, Kuang-hsü; Wang Yen-wei, Hsi-hsün ta-shih chi (see under ); Chung-kuo chin pai-nien shih tzŭ-liao (see under ) (first series, 1926; second series, 1933); 西巡囘鑾始末記 Hsi-hsün hui-luan shih-mo chi (1905); Duyvendak, Ching-shan's Diary—a Mystification, in T'oung Pao, 1937, pp. 268-94; Lewisohn, William, Some Critical Notes on the So-called "Diary of His Excellency Ching Shan", in Monumenta Serica, vol. II (1936–37), pp. 191–202; Li Ping-hêng, 李忠節公奏議 Li Chung-chieh kung tsou-i (1930) 7/28b, 8/16b, 9/20b, 10/3b, 12/15b; U. S. Foreign Relations (1901), Appendix: Rockhill's Report on China;, Wêng Wên-kung kung jih-chi (1925); Cordier, Henri, Histoire des relations de la Chine, vol. 3 (1902).]

2em

 K

KA-êr-tan. See under.

 KA-li. See under.

 KANGGÛRI 康果禮, d. 1631, and his younger brother, Kakduri 喀克都里, (d. 1634), were natives of the Namdulu 那木都魯 district, situated on a branch of the Suifun 綏芬 river 409