Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(1835-1908)
Author(s): Sue Fawn Chung
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2 (1979), pp. 177-196
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/312122 .
Accessed: 28/10/2011 19:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern
Asian Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
A Revisionist
Studyof the Empress
Dowager Tz'u-hsi (1835-1908)
SUE
FAWN
CHUNG
(I873-I929),
China
Blue
Books
I970 edition).
I77
I78
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
and Hosea B. Morse for their information about this period. In fact,
Bland and Backhouse's China Under the Empress Dowager is the book
which has shaped many of our present-day negative images of Tz'u-hsi.
Recently the reliability of Sir Edmund Backhouse has been seriously
challenged by Hugh Trevor-Roper in his excellent study, Hermit of
Peking. There can be no doubt that Western writers drew their facts
from exchanges with the writings by the Chinese radical reformers,
from unreliable eunuchs, and from highly biased newspapers, such as
the Jorth China Herald (a pro-reform Western-oriented Shanghai
newspaper) and the Ch'ing-i pao [China Discussion], which was edited
by Liang Ch'i-ch'ao and published in Yokohama. Thus historians
have been presented with a rather one-sided view of the Ch'ing court
and have given undeserved credence to numerous myths and misconceptions about the Empress Dowager Tz'u-hsi.
The traditional analysis of the significance of the January 24, I900
appointment of an heir apparent is an example of this maligning of the
Empress Dowager. The leaders of the radical reform movement and
their supporters created and successfully popularized the idea that the
establishment of an heir apparent was evidence of a plot by Tz'u-hsi
to depose the Kuang-hsii Emperor (r. I875-1908). According to these
anti-Empress Dowager stories, the Kuang-hsii Emperor had been
imprisoned on the desolate island of Ting-t'ai since the September 1898
coup d'etat. By circulating these rumors, the radical reformers hoped to
discredit the Empress Dowager and gain support for their own causes,
which included the restoration to full power of the Kuang-hsii Emperor.'
By suggesting that the Empress Dowager was responsible for the
Emperor's imprisonment and that she had forced him to sign edicts
which she had composed, the radical reformers were able to attack the
Empress Dowager's power and assert that they were the loyal supporters
of the legitimate ruler of China. Consequently, the radical reformers,
fearful of the removal of their symbolic leader, opposed any move to
depose the Emperor and vigorously propagandized against the selection
of an heir apparent.
However, there are documents which show that the appointment of
an heir apparent was the result of the imperial household's concern
for the lack of an heir in the face of the Emperor's declining health.
The appointment of an heir apparent also had the advantage of preFor more information, see Kung-ch'iian
K'ang ru-wei, Reformerand Utopian, i858-I927
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I79
cluding the unpleasant imperial family rivalry over the choice of a new
ruler, which would surely occur in the event of the Emperor's death
without an heir. Lastly, the appointment of an heir apparent would
insure a smooth transition of government in a time of internal and external difficulties. Thus the daily court records, such as the Tung-hua
hsi-lu, Kuang-hsiich'ao [Continuation of the official documents recorded
at the Tung-hua Gate for the reign of Kuang-hsii] (1909), the Ta
Ch'ing Te-tsungChinghuang-tishih-lu [The veritable records of the Ch'ing
Kuang-hsii Emperor] (1939), and the Kung-chung tang Kuang-hsii
ch'ao tsou-che [Secret palace memorials of the Kuang-hsii period]
confirmed by independent accounts of various officials,
(I973-I975),
offer a radically different interpretation of the appointment of an heir
apparent. Contrary to the radical reformers' assertation that this was
a dethronement plot, these documents suggest that this was done to
avoid a succession crisis.
The Radical Reformersand the Court
One of the main issues involved in the appointment of the heir
apparent was the actual political role of the Kuang-hsii Emperor after
September 2I, 1898. On that day, repeating a request which he had
made in 1887, the Kuang-hsii Emperor beseeched the Empress Dowager
to resume the task of hsin-cheng (giving instruction in the art of governance) and the Empress Dowager agreed to act as regent for the third
time in her life. Contrary to the popular belief that the Kuang-hsii
Emperor was under house arrest and had no power, the Emperor
continued to be active in government after this date. For example, on
September 2 I, 1886, he began the practice of making personal comments
upon secret memorials and he never stopped doing this until his
death in I908. He made notations on several secret memorials on
September 20, 1898 and resumed this task four days later, on September
24, I898.2 From his comments on the secret memorials, it is obvious
that he, like the Empress Dowager, was especially concerned about
2 KCT
I2/I6I-6, 169-70. The Emperor did not read secret memorials every day,
so this is not an unusual interval of time. Yen-p'ing Hao and Kwang-Ching Liu,
'The Importance of the Archival Palace Memorials of the Kuang-hsu Period,
I875-1908,' CSWT 3: I (November I974), 78, have asked the rhetorical questions:
'Were the endorsements after the coup so successfully forged by the dowager empress
that they look like the previous ones in calligraphy? Or has the public in general,
and historians in particular, simply been misled by the reformers of I898, especially
Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, who over-emphasized the captivity of the emperor after the coup
d'etat?' The imperial comments photographically reproduced in the KCT appear
to be from the hand of the Emperor. Only an art expert who has specialized in
calligraphy and examined the original documents can really confirm or deny this.
i8o
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
12/19I-2;
October
4 Ibid.
as Liang-kung.
8 Liu K'un-i,
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I8i
12 NCH
(September 24 and 28, 1898). Court eunuchs often provided information
about the court to NCH informants and to foreigners such as Bland and Backhouse.
The NCH writers often admitted this and Sir Edmund T. Backhouse revealed this in
a posthumous work, see 'Their Mortal Hour,' ed. by R. Hoeppli, AsiatischeStudien
Etudes Asiatiques, 28: I (1974), 1-48. On the unreliability of eunuch information, see
Robert Crawford, 'Eunuch Power in the Ming Dynasty,' TP 49:3 (196 ), I 115-48,
and Howard J. Wechsler, Mirrorto the Son of Heaven: Wei Chengat the Courtof T'ang
T'ai-tsung (New Haven, I974),
8 I-2.
I82
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
among the higher officials caused by the sweeping reform edicts to oust
the Emperor.13 While some Britishers, including Henry Cockburn,
the Chinese Secretary to the British Legation in Peking, doubted
this interpretation, many Chinese and foreigners accepted the idea
that the coupd'etat was, as K'ang asserted, a power struggle between the
Empress Dowager and the Emperor.
The most widely believed rumor stemming from the brushes of the
radical reformers asserted that the Emperor, as a result of the power
struggle, had been imprisoned on Ying-t'ai from around September
24, I898 until the court left Peking for Sian in late I900. Ting-t'ai,
which has been described as an island paradise, the former study and
library of the Kao-tsung Emperor, and the designated retreat for the
Empress Dowager, who had been improving the buildings and grounds
for her anticipated comfort, was a palace complex surrounded on all
sides by the waters of the Nan-hai (South Sea) and located just outside
the southwestern walls of the Forbidden City.14 Although three bridges
originally led to the island, only one footbridge was in existence in
late I898 and thus the Emperor could be easily guarded while he was
confined to a bare room on the island. Many versions of this rumor have
been perpetuated through the years. The most widely accepted version
was that the Empress Dowager had thrown the Emperor into a bare
room there shortly after her return to power, assigned twelve to twenty
local eunuchs to guard him, prohibited him from moving about freely,
provided him with inedible food or poisoned his daily food, separated
him from Chen-fei ('Pearl Concubine,' I876-I900), his true love and
only close companion, and forbade any visitors other than his wife the
Empress Hsiao-ting (I868-I913, later known as the Empress Dowager
Lung-yii) whom the Emperor reportedly despised but who was very
loyal to the Empress Dowager,1s These stories evoked much sympathy
for the Emperor. The radical reformers used the tales to rally the Chinese
13
MacDonald to Salisbury, China Blue Books, October 13, 1898, China No. I
pp. 249-314),
hereafter abbreviated
and 348, Ch'iu Tsung-chang, 'Tsai-t'ien wai-chi' [On the (Kuang-hsii Emperor)
Tsai-t'ien], I-ching 29 (May 5, I937), 34-43, and Yao Hsin-nung, The Malice of
Empire,trans. by Jeremy Ingalls (London, 1970).
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I83
people and the foreigners to the cause of reform and the establishment
of a constitutional monarchy and to denounce the present regime.
The radical reformers also discredited edicts signed by the Emperor
by saying that the Empress Dowager coerced him to sign them.
In September 1898, the radical reformer Wang Chao told the Americans
who helped him escape to Japan that the Emperor was forced to request
the assistance of the Empress Dowager in the governing of the country.l6
This explanation was applied to later edicts, especially those which
denounced the radical reformers. The JVCH,for example, often labeled
the Emperor's edicts of this period as 'What the Emperor Was Forced
to Say.'17 These interpretations of the facts formed the foundation of
the helpless, docile image of the imprisoned Emperor.
The inconsistencies of the news reports stemming from the radical
reformers and their supporters were noted by a small minority of
foreigners. For example, in late I898, J. E. Walker, a missionary
wrote :18
Its Officials,and People(New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, I909), p. 159. See
18 Walker,'China's
DowagerEmpress,'p. 494.
I84
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
185
information that the rebels were trying to return to the country and that
their associates were planning to cause trouble in the country. Thus
the court warned the high provincial officials that they should investigate the situation and capture the rebels if possible. On December 28th
the court announced that more evidence against K'ang Yu-wei had
been brought to light by T'an Chung-lin, the Governor-general of
Liang-Kwang, who had found some very damaging letters in K'ang's
Canton residence.24 One letter stated that T'an Ssu-t'ung (1865-1898)
was to be chosen as the president of a republic. Moreover, the letters
did not use the traditional 'Kuang-hsii dating system,' indicating the
radical reformers' revolutionary aims. The court reiterated that it
would 'remain tolerant and did not wish to examine deeply the
implications [of these letters],' but the serious nature of the ideas
expressed in these letters indicated that K'ang was guilty of more than
just spreading heterodox theories. Eventually, the court took a less
tolerant view of radical reform activities in China.
Reports of more subversive activities of the radical reformers prompted
the court to change its position. One factor was the appearance and
growing circulation of the CIP, edited by Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, published
in Yokohama, and distributed in China by underground supporters
in port cities such as Shanghai. The radical reformers' journal published
its first issue on December 23, 1898, and by late February 1899, Chang
Chih-tung, as well as other high officials, had read a copy. On March 2,
1899, Chang informed the Tsungli Yamen about the CIP and its
corrupting influence on the minds of the people.25 Lo Tun-jung, a wellknown historian from Kwangtung and colleague of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao,
claimed that the court official Kang-i presented the Empress Dowager
with a copy of the CIP some time after June 1899 and that the articles
criticizing her caused her to be 'very angry.' Nevertheless, the court
did not take any direct action against the journal's circulation at this
time. This task was in the hands of high officials, particularly Liu
K'un-i and Chang Chih-tung, who personally attempted to stop the
importation of the CIP.26 Their efforts were not very successful. The
24
I86
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
SL 451 /5b-6a.
28
SL 455/3a-4b.
29
SL 458/9a.
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I87
Emperor
on his suppression
of the Tz'u-li
hui
I88
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I89
forces, would depose the Emperor. Liang also claimed that the Emperor
and radical reformers knew about this plot months before the coup
d'etat. When, on August 24, 1898, the date of the inspection was set
for October 19, I898, the Emperor reportedly became very agitated
and swore to I-k'uang (Prince Ch'ing, 1836-1916), that he would
never go to Tientsin.37 However, the actual execution of this plot was
canceled because the Empress Dowager resumed power on September
21,
1898, and thereby made it unnecessary to depose the Emperor.
The fact that the coup d'etat could be accomplished with such ease has
caused many scholars to question the validity of this story, particularly
the necessity for Tz'u-hsi to depose the Emperor in Tientsin.
The general conclusion of most historians was that this story was
not true. Su Chi-tsu, a contemporary historian, raised the issue of
why Tz'u-hsi and Jung-lu should take the trouble to leave Peking,
where the Empress Dowager had tremendous power and influence,
and go to Tientsin in order to depose the Emperor.38 Moreover, Su
realized that the outcry from officials and foreigners would have been
great and questioned whether the Pei-yang Army would have been
powerful enough to resist the dissension in the empire and the adverse
reaction of the foreigners, who were looking for any excuse to gain
more power in China. Yano Jin'ichi simply denied that there was any
truth to the tale.39 Liu Feng-han demonstrated that it would have been
strategically unwise for the military forces to attempt to depose the
Emperor in Tientsin and therefore doubted the validity of the Tientsin
plot.40 Nevertheless, there were some who believed this rumor or
other variations of this rumor.
Foreigners in China were particularly gullible. The editors of the
Shen-pao politely commented that the foreigners did not understand
the situation in China and therefore spread erroneous stories.41 One
such rumor was created by a Japanese correspondent in Peking. He
probably learned about the Tientsin plot, but had his facts slightly
mixed up. He reported that on October 23, 1898, the Empress Dowager,
37Hsiao I-shan, like many others, believed this tale. See Ch'ing-taiT'ung-shih[A
comprehensive history of the Ch'ing dynasty], Taiwan: Shang-wu yin-shu-kuan
(Commercial Press), I963. 4 vols, 4/2126-2127. Edict announcing inspection date SL
423/ oa-b.
38 Su Chi-tsu,
'Ch'ing-t'ing wu-hsii ch'ao pien chi' [Notes on the 1898 Ch'ing
39 Yano
Jin'ichi, 'Bojutsu no hemp6 oyobi siehen' [The reform and coup d'etat of
1898], Shirin (Kyoto, 8: I-3 (I923), 456.
40 Liu
iian Shih-k'aiyii Wu-hsiichengpien [Yuan Shih-k'ai and the coup
Feng-han,
d'e'tat of 1898] (Taipei: Wen-hsing shu-tien, I964).
41 Shen-pao (October 24, 1898).
Igo
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
with the assistance of the military forces under the command of I-k'uang
and Tsai-i (Prince Tuan), would depose the Emperor in the Forbidden
City.42 The story was published in the Jii Shimbun [Current Events
Newspaper] around October I9, I898, and later quoted by Liang
Ch'i-ch'ao as further evidence of the danger which surrounded the
Emperor.
Although these earlier plots had very dubious points, the I899
plot to dethrone the Emperor was generally regarded as being truthful
because a successor to the throne was established. Liang Ch'i-ch'ao,
in his articles in the CIP, was adamant about the danger to the Emperor's
life and position and together with K'ang Yu-wei, he sponsored a Paohuang hui [Society to Protect the Emperor] among the overseas Chinese
as early as July, I899.43 K'ang and Liang regarded the announcement
of the establishment of the heir apparent as proof of their allegations.
Their position that there was a plot was confirmed by three pro-radical
reform writers, Yiin Yii-ting, Wang Chao, and Lo Tun-jung, whose
publications have greatly influenced later historians and writers.
Yiin's account has been accepted by later historians because he was
a member of the Hanlin Academy and present in court at the time.
However, his reliability must be questioned. For example, Yiin quoted
Jung-lu as saying to the Empress Dowager that the new heir apparent
would be 'regarded as the-heir to both the late T'ung-chih (Mu-tsung)
Emperor and the present Emperor.'44 In his edict ofJanuary 24, 1900,
the Kuang-hsii Emperor clearly stated that the heir apparent was to
continue only the T'ung-chih line.45 This kind of glaring error should
not have been made by a person actively involved in court matters.
Moreover, Yiin, an ardent supporter of the Kuang-hsii Emperor,
wrote this account in I9II and had it published in I9I4 in Tung-yen
[The Justice], a journal edited by Liang Ch'i-ch'ao. This indicates that
Yiin probably was active in the K'ang-Liang faction. He certainly
supported their anti-Manchu and anti-Empress Dowager position.
Wang Chao's version of the dethronement plot has some variations
from Yiin's story.46 Jung-lu is given a more active role because the
42Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, WHCPC2/113 and WHPF 1/265-6. Text of article in Hsiao
I-shan, Ch'ing-tait'ung-shih,4/21 65-6.
43On the society, see Hellmut Wilhelm, 'The Poems from the Hall of Obscured
Brightness,' in K'ang ru-wei, ed. by Jung-pang Lo (Tucson, Arizona, I967), 329-30.
See also Ch'ing-ipaofrom late 1899 to early 1900; see especially the following editions:
29 (October 5, 1899), I7a-b; 37 (March I, i9oo), Ia-3b, and 38 (March II, I900),
9a-I2b.
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I9I
Empress Dowager, realizing the need for support of the military in such
a matter, gave him the responsibility to decide about the dethronement.
Jung-lu, in doubt as to what to do, sent a secret telegram to Liu K'un-i
to ascertain his opinion. In his reply dated early 1900, Liu supposedly
stated that the negative public opinion of the Chinese and foreigners
would be difficult to suppress and suggested that an heir apparent,
rather than a new emperor, be established. Jung-lu relayed the message
to the Empress Dowager, who reluctantly followed this course of action.
Wang Chao, an active participant in the radical reform movement,
fled to Japan in late 1898 and did not return to China until mid-1900.47
At best his information had to be second-hand. Moreover, Liu's
collected writings do not include such a telegram, but in October
I898, Liu did send the Tsungli Yamen a telegram which read:48
It has been unfortunate for the country that there had been this drastic
reform [movement] ... We must beware of public opinion inside and outside
of the country... The people feel afraid. The foreign powers are seeking
an opportunity to take advantage [of the situation] ... I support the Empress
Dowager and the Emperor...
Others, such as the writer Hu Ssu-ching, also misquoted this telegram
to support the notion that Liu opposed the dethronement plot.49
If Liu was truly a leading critic of the plot, his career certainly did not
suffer from his active opposition to the January 24, I900 edict because
one month later he was honored with extraordinary rewards for his
services and in March, 1900, he was appointed to the prestigious
position of Junior Guardian to the Heir Apparent. Wang Chao's
story was probably fabricated or reflected Wang Chao's propensity
for repeating gossip, a trait clearly revealed in his collected writings.
ch'iian-chi
Chao], prefacedated I913, reprintedin Shui-tung
[The completeworksof
(Wang Chao of) the Eastern Waters] (Taipei, 1964), 7a-9b.
47Wang Chao, Hsiao-han,3/42a. He stated that he left Japan in the fourth moon of
1900.
48Liu K'un-i, Works,'telegrams,' dated October 13, I898, I/44b-45a. See also,
Wang Chao, Fang-chia,7a-b, and Shen Yiin-lung, 'Wan Ch'ing kung-t'ing cheng-
Hu Ssu-ching,Kuo-wen
pei-ch'eng
[Recordof nationalaffairs],in T'ui lu ch'iianchi
(Taipei, 1970), 3/2a-3b. Hu dates the quote as i898, but changes some of the charac-
I92
SUE FAWN
CHUNG
Like Yiin and Wang, Lo Tun-jung wrote his variation of the account
from hindsight.50 Unlike the others, he included Li Hung-chang in the
plot. Li, who had been appointed to the post of Governor-general of
Liang-Kwang, privately asked the foreign ministers in Peking whether
they would congratulate an heir apparent. When the ministers refused,
Li told Jung-lu, who, in turn, told the Empress Dowager. She was
enraged by the news and became more xenophobic, thus causing her
to support the anti-foreign Boxer rebels. Lo, a noted historian, was on
the regular staff of rung-yen, which indicates his close ties with Liang
and the radical reform goals. As a native of Kwangtung, he or his family
may have been adversely affected by Li Hung-chang's governorgeneralship, hence his negative portrayal of Li. Consequently, it is not
surprising that neither the records of the foreign ministers nor the
writings of Li Hung-chang contain any data to verify his tale of the
dethronement plot.
The JVCH also published several accounts of dethronement plots
and efforts. The sources of much of their information were court
eunuchs, who, in one case, claimed that Li Lien-ying and I-k'uang
(Prince Ch'ing) had engineered the forced 'abdication' of the Emperor
on January 24, g9oo.51 The NCH consistently supported the radical
reformers and opposed the existing 'reactionary' government. These
foreigners believed that the reformers respected the foreigner's skill and
capital, upon which China's prosperity depended. Consequently, most
of the foreign readers of the NCH wanted to believe that the Emperor
was on the verge of being deposed because such an interpretation could
serve as a justification for future imperialistic actions against the
Empress Dowager and in the name of the unfortunate Emperor.
Succession Crisis
A more rational explanation for the establishment of an heir apparent
is that a succession crisis existed in late 899. The fact that the Emperor
had no son and was in poor health precipitated the succession crisis.
The interference of foreigners in court affairs, the development of rival
court factions, the failure to achieve moderate reforms in many critical
areas, and the growing unrest among the populace during a period
of natural calamities also contributed to the necessity to select an heir
to the throne as a precautionary measure. Thus if the Emperor's
50 Lo Tun-jung,
'Chu'iian-pien,' 555-7.
51 NCH (March 14, 900o). See also, JCH (January 30, Igoo and May 2, I9oo).
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I93
illness proved to be fatal, the next ruler would have been selected so
that there could be a smooth transition in leadership.
Many were concerned about the Emperor's state of health. When, on
September 25, 1898, the Emperor first informed the Grand Secretariat
that he had been ill since the fourth moon (May 20 to June I8, 1898)
and asked for recommendations of physicians to cure him, all kinds of
rumors arose.52 Liang Ch'i-ch'ao quickly denied that anything had
been wrong with the Emperor because he did not want the radical
reform edicts discredited.53 He also claimed that the Empress Dowager
had forced the Emperor to send a telegram to each province stating that
K'ang Yu-wei had given him the drug hung-wan ('red pills'), which
caused his illness. Liang asserted that it was actually the Empress
Dowager who was administering this drug. Years later, the revolutionaries publicly pointed out that the Emperor could not have lived for so
many years if anyone had forced him to take this drug.54 Nevertheless,
the radical reformers raised enough concern for the Emperor's welfare
that the foreign ministers decided to intervene.
On October 13, I898, the British Minister Sir Claude MacDonald,
in response to these rumors, warned the Ch'ing authorities that the
Western nations would take a dim view of any attempt on the Emperor's
life.55 The British insisted that a foreign physician examine the Emperor.
With much reluctance on the part of the court, the French Legation's
physician was allowed to examine the Emperor on October 18, I898.56
He reported that the Emperor was afflicted with Bright's disease, which
caused his physical stamina to be weak at times and normal at other
times. This was not the kind of report which the British and other
foreigners wanted to hear. National antagonisms and other factors
entered into the picture and as a result, the French physician's skills
were regarded as incompetent. The British were not completely satisfied
about the Emperor's condition until the British Legation's physician
returned from England and periodically examined the Emperor
throughout 1899.
Among the high officials who did not favor this kind of interference
SL 426/13b and TH I48/6a.
WHCPC, chuan 2 and WHPF 1/262.
85.
55 MacDonald to Salisbury, China Blue Books, October
I6, 1898, China No. I
(I899), Doc. 358, p. 264.
56 MacDonald
to Salisbury, China Blue Books, October 29, 1898, China No. I
(I899), Doc. 373, p. 275. Hosea Ballou Morse, International Relations, 3/145, stated
that 'It is certain that the emperor's life was only saved by the fear of foreign
adverse opinion and by the difficulty of immediately finding a successor.' This is an
exaggeration of the situation. See also, NCH (September 4, I899).
52
53 Liang Chi'-ch'ao,
54 Min-pao I (i905),
I94
SUE
FAWN
CHUNG
THE
MUCH
MALIGNED
EMPRESS
DOWAGER
I95
Ch'ing-ipao
63
SL 457/ oa- I b.
(August 8, 1899), I6b and 29 (October 5, I899), I7a.
For a detailed study of the court's efforts at moderate reform during the period
I96
SUE FAWN
CHUNG