Koxinga and Chinese Nationalism: History, Myth, and the Hero

135 Pages·1977·1.904 MB·English

by  Ralph C. Croizier

HARVARD EAST ASIAN MONOGRAPHS
67
KOXINGA AND CHINESE NATIONALISM
HISTORY, MYTH, AND THE HERO

KOXINGA AND CHINESE NATIONALISM
HISTORY, MYTH, AND THE HERO
by
Ralph C. Croizier
Published by
East Asian Research Center
Harvard University
Distributed by
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
and
London, England
1977
° Copyright, 1977, by
The President and Fellows of
Harvard College
The East Asian Research Center at Harvard University adminis­
ters research projects designed to further scholarly understand­
ing of China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Inner Asia, and adjacent
areas. These studies have been assisted by grants from the Ford
Foundation.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Croizier, Ralph C
Koxinga and Chinese nationalism.
(Harvard East Asian monographs ; 67)
Bibliography: p. 99
Includes index.
1. Koxinga, 1624-1662. 2. Generals—China—Biography. 3.
Taiwan—History. 4. Nationalism—China. I. Title. II. Series.
DS753.6.K6C76 951’.249*030924 [B] 76-30404
ISBN 0-674-50566-2
CONTENTS
PREFACE vii
I. History, Myth and Nationalism 1
II. In Search of the Historical Koxinga 6
III. Myth, Model, and Archetype in the Traditional
Chinese Hero 28
IV. The Nationalist Configuration 50
V. His Undisputed Legacy in a Divided China 63
VI. History and the Hero * 79
NOTES 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY 99
INDEX 111
ILLUSTRATIONS opposite page 1
following page 49

PREFACE
This is a study of how the perception and manipuladon of histori­
cal symbols change in response to new historical circumstances. It
is appropriate therefore to note how a particular set of historical
circumstances of the last two decades—the availability of Taiwan
as the only authentic Chinese cultural area open to foreign stu­
dents of Chinese history—shaped the origins of this study.
Like others of my generation, my first direct exposure to a
real China was in Taiwan, first as a graduate student in 1963-
1964, later as a professor (but still very much a student) in 1969-
1970. During the first stay my attention was initially drawn to
Koxinga—but not so much to Koxinga as to how his image re­
flected changing perceptions of the foremost historical hero on
Taiwan, and not so much to Taiwan as to how Taiwan rep­
resented and fit in with larger patterns in Chinese history. During
my second stay I plunged into the questions of historical con­
sciousness and its modern uses which had distracted me from my
thesis writing five years earlier. In a society so obviously undergo­
ing rapid socioeconomic change yet pervaded by historical sym­
bols and associations, some of which were obviously being ma­
nipulated for political ends, questions of historical continuity, na­
tional identity, and cultural change took on a poignancy and an
immediacy lacking when studied in American university libraries.
Whether my perception would have been substantially altered
had I been living in that other Chinese society across the Taiwan
Strait, I cannot say. Perhaps I would not have hit upon Koxinga as
my subject for studying the transformation of historical symbols.
But I think it will be clear from this study that I see Koxinga’s
significance in much broader terms than just Taiwan, and that I
believe that many of the same issues of historical consciousness are
important in both Chinas. In other words, if the origin of this
study was Taiwan, I hope it will go beyond Taiwanese history into
Chinese history in general.
The origins of this study also go back to two remarkable, but
very different, teachers at the University of California. Joseph
Levenson first sensitized me to problems of historical process,
identity, and consciousness. Wolfram Eberhard helped show me
how historical consciousness operates at the level of popular cul­
ture. My debt to both is incalculable.
In addition, I was fortunate enough to have friends such as
Laurence Schneider, who shares my taste for the ambiguides of
historical symbols, and Frederic Wakeman, another connoisseur
of historical ambiguides and also a bona fide seventeenth-century
specialist. Both gave me very helpful readings of this study. Other
friends and colleagues, notable Jack Wills, Andrew Nathan, and
Sue Fawn Chung, provided advice and encouragement.
I also am grateful to the University of California, Center for
Chinese Studies, and especially Jo Pearson, for moral and clerical
support and to the University of Rochester East Asian Center for
similar help at an earlier stage. Finally, as my earlier paragraphs
indicate, this study could not have taken its present shape without
direct experience of a Chinese culture area. The Joint Committee
on Contemporary and Republican China of the Social Science
Research Council supported my research on Taiwan and Hong
Kong in 1969-1970 and the East Asian Center of the University of
Rochester enabled me to make a shorter follow-up trip in 1971.
To all the above named individuals and institutions, and to
countless unnamed faces and impressions on Taiwan, my deepest
thanks.
Ralph Croizier
Rochester, New York
June, 1975