"God's Chinese Son"
Jun. 1st, 2005 09:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Jonathan Spence's God's Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan is a history of the Taiping Rebellion (1845-64). This revolt against China's Manchu overlords was the bloodiest uprising in history; over twenty million Chinese died in that war, either in battle or of starvation. Though Spence's book does pay some attention to the political and military aspects of the war, it is its religious history that is the focus of the book. Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the rebellion, preached a new faith, based on Christian teachings but with a heavy overlay of Chinese tradition, and the interplay of those two religious forces makes for a fascinating story.
The story began in 1837, when a gravely ill Confucian scholar named Hong Huoxiu had a vision, in which he was taken up to the heavens and met the celestial family - his own real family. He was, he learned, the second son of the Lord of Heaven, and it was to be his task to drive the devils - the Manchus - from China. Recovering from his illness, he (following his Father's commands) changed his name to Hong Xiuquan. For some years afterward he was uncertain of the meaning of the vision, but in 1843 he read a set of Chinese translations of several stories from the Bible, and they provided a context. This context, though, was maddeningly incomplete; the stories seemed to take many things for granted, and Hong was forced to extrapolate from them to fill in the gaps. Those extrapolations partook of the Confucianism he had long studied, and thus the Taiping faith was born. Hong began to preach, and soon converted many of the residents of his home village.
As time passed and the movement's influence spread, Hong acquired translations of the rest of the Bible. Some of these clashed with his own beliefs and extrapolations, and he began editing - correcting - them. When the movement grew strong enough to attract the attention of Europeans, dialogue began with more orthodox missionaries; Hong was, by that time, sufficiently familiar with the Bible to dispute with them effectively. Though he had hoped that the Europeans, as fellow Christians, would prove to be allies, his insistence on his own interpretations and on the central insights of his vision dashed those hopes. (This had further ramifications, as the British and French eventually intervened in support of the imperial forces, and the final defeat of the rebellion owed much to foreign action.)
Within the movement itself, there was constant tension between the Christian and Confucian components of the message. Hong initially rejected the Confucian classics as the work of devils. This began to change after one of his disciples, Yang Xiuqing, began experiencing trances; Yang's words while entranced were declared by Hong to be the words of God the Father. (Another disciple became the mouthpiece of Hong's Elder Brother Jesus.) As a result, Yang grew increasingly powerful within the movement, even, eventually, chastising Hong himself for misbehavior - and Hong accepted this chastisement. Yang began restoring the Confucian writings to their previous place of honor. Ultimately, Yang's reach for power offended two of Hong's generals, who (with Hong's connivance) killed him and many of his followers. However, too many of Yang's followers and allies survived, and Hong found it expedient to sacrifice the two generals as well. The bloodletting cost the rebels one of their most capable administrators (Yang) and two of their best generals, as well as sowing mistrust within Hong's surviving inner circle.
There is much more to the story, of course, but the items above, I think, indicate the religious complexity of the movement, and the ramifications of that complexity for the political and military fortunes of the rebellion. I found the story to be fascinating.
There are problems with the book, to be sure. Perhaps the most annoying is Spence's habit of switching between past and present tense, sometimes paragraph to paragraph. There may be a logic to the choice of tense, but I did not notice one. The use of present tense to give greater immediacy to past events is, of course, a time-honored tradition, but it doesn't come off very well here. Nonetheless, I found the overall story interesting enough that I could overlook the stylistic flaws.
The story began in 1837, when a gravely ill Confucian scholar named Hong Huoxiu had a vision, in which he was taken up to the heavens and met the celestial family - his own real family. He was, he learned, the second son of the Lord of Heaven, and it was to be his task to drive the devils - the Manchus - from China. Recovering from his illness, he (following his Father's commands) changed his name to Hong Xiuquan. For some years afterward he was uncertain of the meaning of the vision, but in 1843 he read a set of Chinese translations of several stories from the Bible, and they provided a context. This context, though, was maddeningly incomplete; the stories seemed to take many things for granted, and Hong was forced to extrapolate from them to fill in the gaps. Those extrapolations partook of the Confucianism he had long studied, and thus the Taiping faith was born. Hong began to preach, and soon converted many of the residents of his home village.
As time passed and the movement's influence spread, Hong acquired translations of the rest of the Bible. Some of these clashed with his own beliefs and extrapolations, and he began editing - correcting - them. When the movement grew strong enough to attract the attention of Europeans, dialogue began with more orthodox missionaries; Hong was, by that time, sufficiently familiar with the Bible to dispute with them effectively. Though he had hoped that the Europeans, as fellow Christians, would prove to be allies, his insistence on his own interpretations and on the central insights of his vision dashed those hopes. (This had further ramifications, as the British and French eventually intervened in support of the imperial forces, and the final defeat of the rebellion owed much to foreign action.)
Within the movement itself, there was constant tension between the Christian and Confucian components of the message. Hong initially rejected the Confucian classics as the work of devils. This began to change after one of his disciples, Yang Xiuqing, began experiencing trances; Yang's words while entranced were declared by Hong to be the words of God the Father. (Another disciple became the mouthpiece of Hong's Elder Brother Jesus.) As a result, Yang grew increasingly powerful within the movement, even, eventually, chastising Hong himself for misbehavior - and Hong accepted this chastisement. Yang began restoring the Confucian writings to their previous place of honor. Ultimately, Yang's reach for power offended two of Hong's generals, who (with Hong's connivance) killed him and many of his followers. However, too many of Yang's followers and allies survived, and Hong found it expedient to sacrifice the two generals as well. The bloodletting cost the rebels one of their most capable administrators (Yang) and two of their best generals, as well as sowing mistrust within Hong's surviving inner circle.
There is much more to the story, of course, but the items above, I think, indicate the religious complexity of the movement, and the ramifications of that complexity for the political and military fortunes of the rebellion. I found the story to be fascinating.
There are problems with the book, to be sure. Perhaps the most annoying is Spence's habit of switching between past and present tense, sometimes paragraph to paragraph. There may be a logic to the choice of tense, but I did not notice one. The use of present tense to give greater immediacy to past events is, of course, a time-honored tradition, but it doesn't come off very well here. Nonetheless, I found the overall story interesting enough that I could overlook the stylistic flaws.