New courses in a colonial institution : the Chinese history curriculum at the University of Hong Kong, 1927-41

Abstract

In this thesis, I examine efforts in promoting studies of Chinese history at the University of Hong Kong (HKU) by Chinese intellectuals from 1927, when the four-year Chinese programme was restored, to 1941, when HKU education was interrupted by the Pacific War. For the initial eight years, history courses were taught by scholars who previously worked in Hanlin Academy of Qing Dynasty (hence Hanlin scholars) Lai Jixi and Luo Runan. Later, teaching works were gradually transferred to newly-arrived mainland scholars, namely Xu Dishan, who was a strong advocate of using written vernacular Chinese, and Chen Yinke, a scholar researching medieval Chinese history. Drawing on university archives, colonial files and personal diaries, this thesis attempts to contribute to a more thorough understanding of how these scholars gradually carved out a space for Chinese studies in the institution dominated by European staff. It challenges the stance of previous literature that treated development of Chinese education at HKU as the result of promotion by European staff, or as a quick shift from one method of teaching to another under new scholars, by arguing the following points: The ideas on history studies cherished by Hanlin scholars were connected with their own experience and interpretation of intense socio-political changes, which explained their desire for emphasizing Confucian morality and writing histories using alternative approaches from those advocating new historiography or using scientific methods in compiling history works. However, such ideas gradually lost their discursive power both inside the Department and within the Board of Arts Faculty due to negative responses to their methods of teaching from different sides. On the other hand, the gradual transformation of curriculum revealed a complicated process of negotiations among staff inside the Chinese programme and between European and Chinese members of the Arts Faculty, which, though being a protracted process due to differences in priorities, did not hamper adoption of new curriculum by newly-arrived mainland intellectuals. Scholarship from Hanlins to newly-arrived mainland intellectuals cherished a hybridity of ideas from multiple sources, and the curriculum development indicates more of an expansion of scope and methods of historical enquiry than a complete rupture from ideas cherished by Hanlin scholars.