The Emergence of "" ("zongjiaoxue") in Late Imperial and Republican China, 1890–1949 Author(s): Christian Meyer Source: Numen , 2015, Vol. 62, No. 1, Special Issue: De-Orienting Religious Studies: Four Genealogies of the Study of in Modern Asia (2015), pp. 40-75 Published by: Brill Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24644867

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 [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms i»to I0 "* ^ ' NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75 NVMEN BRILL brill.com/nu

The Emergence of "Religious Studies" (zongjiaoxue) in Late Imperial and Republican China, 1890-1949

Christian Meyer Institutes of Sinology and Religious Studies, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg Jordanweg 2, 91054 Erlangen, Germany christian, m eyer@fau. de

Abstract

This article contextualizes the rise of "early religious studies in China" with its apex in the 1920s within the heated debates on the role of in a modern Chinese . While the most recent development of religious studies (zongjiaoxue) in China (includ ing Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) is well known, its early emergence in the late Qing and Republican periods (ca. 1890-1949) has been a neglected topic. The author demonstrates first how antagonistic anti-religious and affirmative positions, received from Western modernization discourse and informed by the contested character of the concept of religion itself, led to the emergence of this new discipline in Republican China as a product of broader discourses on modernization. Secondly, the article evalu ates the limited institutionalization of religious studies as a distinct "full" discipline in relation to the broader interdisciplinary "field" of research and public debates on reli gion. While the interdisciplinary character is typical of the field in general (also in the West), the limited degree of "full disciplinarity" depended on specific, local discursive and political factors of its time. As "religion" appears as an important modern discourse

I would like to thank Philip Clart for his helpful comments on an earlier version and Andrea Pinkney for proofreading the final draft of this chapter. Research for this chapter has been generously supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (dfg) for a one-year research stay at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2007 to 2008 and from the International Consortium for Research in the Humanities (ikgf) "Fate, Freedom and Prognostication. Strategies for Coping with the Future" at the University of Erlangen Nuremberg from 2010 to 2011. The article has further profited from several research stays at the Institute of Sino-Christian Studies (iscs), Hong Kong, since 2007 and my year at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, from 2012 to 2013. I am especially grateful for the wonderful hospitality at the named institutes.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2015 | DOI 10.1163/15685276-12341355

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 41 in East Asia, the early emergence of religious studies in China thereby reflects social, political, and intellectual transitions from Imperial to Republican China, and offers a unique perspective on Asian discourses on religious and secular modernities.

Keywords religious studies in Asia 一 zonqjiaoxue 一 late Qing dynasty 一 republican China 1912 1949 一 history of religions 一 一 science of religion 一 Shukyogaku

In this article, I consider how zongjlaoxue} “religious studies,” arose in Late Imperial and early Republican China (1890-1949), While the discipline of reli gious studies is firmly established in higher educational institutions in China today (including Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), this article is dedicated to its early roots in the Late Imperial and Republican era.2 For this period, the situation is less clear and recent overviews of the history of the discipline in China have even tended to deny its existence (e.g., He, Chung, and Lee 2008:159 -190; Lai 2006:10072-10076; Schipper 2002:377-386). In the 1920s, a diverse cohort of Chinese scholars became interested in the Western concept and new approach of "religious studies” during a time of great systemic change in China. Beginning in the last years of imperial China (until 1911) through the start of the Republic (1912), the traditional system of examination in the Confucian classics was gradually eclipsed as the old impe rial system collapsed and modern institutions were constructed. These con ditions contributed to the production of a new intellectual elite, conversant with Western thinking and taxonomies ("Western learning,” xixue 西學).3 The earliest major subjects of these emergent fields were the natural sciences and

1 The term "religious studies" is used for convenience, bearing in mind that alternative titles have been used or discussed throughout the history of the discipline, such as “science of religion,” "comparative religion,” “(s)” or, more recently, “academic study of religions," and so on. In Chinese, the term zongjiaoxue is akin to the German Religionswissenschaft or the French phrase sciences de la religion，to refer to the whole disci pline as encompassing historical and comparative approaches. The contribution of Chinese intellectuals to modern discourse on religious studies has been understudied thus far. 2 See also Lam 2004:177-186 and others. Research on religion in the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong has developed again since the 1980s with specialized (sub)departments, professor ships, as well as periodicals dedicated to religious studies. 3 For the role of civil exams in late Qing China and its breakdown, see also Elman 2000; for the social relevance of the new Western-style universities in Republican China, see Yeh 1990.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms MEYER philosophy, while and religious studies were not in the focus.4 This changed in the first half of the twentieth century, especially during the 1920s to the 1940s, when much of the content and theories regarding “religion” as part of the Western academic canon were received and adopted in China for the first time. This new field had to be designated with a neologism: zongjiao xue 宗教學，a literal translation of the Western term “science of religion” as coined by the German Max Muller in Oxford or, more fully, as Bijiao zongjiao xue 比較宗教學(comparative [study of] religion). My general concern is, therefore, to shed light on the history of zongjiaoxuet and to expand scholarly discourse on the global genealogy of religious studies to include the contributions of twentieth-century scholarship from China. As a first thesis, I will show in a discursive analysis how the growth of this disci pline in China was based mainly on the interaction of two emergent, modern milieus: recent converts to (mainly Protestant denominations) alongside a new Chinese intellectual class. In this interaction, closely linked to general discourses on “modernization,” numerous ideological positions and arguments from the West were transplanted in China through heterogeneous channels of transfer and produced what might be called “multiple moderni ties" related to the question of religion. Accordingly, heated debates on reli gion and modernity in this time also mirrored discursive constellations in the West In fact, from the very beginning of the twentieth century, it was clear to members of this new class of Chinese intellectuals that China had to respond to Western knowledge. Debate hinged on whether this response should be adapted on a large scale, to create a “New China” based on “wholesale west ernization" (quanpan xihua 全盤西イ匕)，as argued by so-called liberals such as Hu Shi, or selectively preserved and combined with Western elements, as advocated by more culturally conservative thinkers such as the "Modern Neo Confucianists." It was in this context that “religious studies” became a noted field of dispute itself. The interaction and exchange of arguments led not only to an increasing recognition of the field, but also to its partial institutional for mation as a new discipline in China. As a second concern, I will therefore evaluate the institutionalization of reli gious studies as a "foil discipline” in relation to the broader field of research on religion that developed in other, neighboring disciplines. My main thesis lies here in that the limited development of religious studies as a fall discipline does

4 This is reflected in the projects on the transfer of academic disciplines in China by Lackner, Amelung, and Kurtz 2001 and Lackner and Vittinghoff 2004:25-30; cf. Elman 2006:100-101, where the field of religion, including theology and religious studies, is basically left out.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 43 not only reflect its general interdisciplinary character as a border field, but was also constrained by specific discursive and pohtical factors. As a third, more general thesis that might also be applicable to other con texts, I finally suggest that discussion about religion and the discipline areli gious studies" did not take place in a socio-political vacuum detached from public discourses. Instead, heated debates on religion in the public sphere were a major factor that pushed academic engagement on the subject and shaped the emergence of the modern discipline in China. Beyond the question of how far Western theories, methodologies, or concepts were received, another major question is therefore to which degree researchers were involved in non academic debates on religion, and how much this influenced the formulation of their respective research agendas. Accordingly, I will first lay the groundwork by discussing the criteria and problems for a new academic discipline in general, with particular reference to the development of “Western” religious studies, considering its interdisciplin ary character as a “border field” and its accomplishment of full disciplinarity applying a sociology of knowledge perspective. Second, I will contextualize the emergence of zonqjiaoxue in China — including earlier developments in Japan and in China in the 1890s 一 in the debates of its time with particular focus on discourses and publications. In a further step in this section, the reasons for the only partial institutionalization as a "full discipline" shall be analyzed. Finally, I will evaluate this mixed situation of partial institutionalization within a broader interdisciplinary field of research on religion with reference to relevant fields of research and highlight the contribution of key actors — anti-religious as well as affirmative or apologetic 一 whose engagement in dif ferent disciplines and the public lea to the emergence of this new, contested discipline.

Origins of Religious Studies in the West and Criteria for a New Academic Discipline: Epistemic, Institutional, and Structural Aspects

As a first step, I will try to lay the groundwork by identifying elements and criteria for new disciplines in general with regard to "forms of communica tionw (Posner 1989:173) among their participants. With reference to a sociology of knowledge perspective, two aspects essential to the term “discipline” shall be distinguished, namely, "epistemic as well as institutional” ones (Veit-Brause 2003:10; cf. similarly Whitley 1984:13). A helpful definition for both elements is

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 44 MEYER found in Andrew Abbott's Chaos of Disciplines, which discusses the question of the development of a "discipline" in relation and dissociation to interdisciplin ary "border fields" — a question particularly interesting for religious studies with its strong interdisciplinary roots.

Epistemic Aspects: Disciplinary Axis of Cohesion and Central Principles As a first step, Abbott tries to solve the problem of defining a new disci pline in contrast to interdisciplinary "border fields" by defining its particular "axis of cohesion" or "central principles."5 According to Abbott, these can be defined in very different ways. "Political science" is then "about power, eco nomics about choice, anthropology about ethnography, and so on" (2001:140). Accordingly, "in the social sciences and humanities, axes of cohesion are not aligned... [Ajnthropology is largely organized around a method, political sci ence around a type of relationship, and economics around a theory of action. Sociology — best conceived as organized around an archipelago of particular subject matters — presents yet another axis of cohesion."6 What is most basic is therefore the existence of a common research topic combined with a meth odology and their shared discursive use in academic publications. If we look at the example of religious studies, it was first of all the term "religion" itself which had, slowly since the sixteenth century and then more and more with the enlightenment and post-enlightenment periods,7 become a meta-term for more than only the Christian religion, its confessions, and denominations, but also beyond the of the old Mediterranean world, including , , and ancient and archaic traditions (Smith 1998). Global encounters

5 Abbott 2001:140. Different from these useful definitions, Abbott's own concern in his book lies in his particular theory of 'fractals" ("fractal distinctions" or "fractal cycles," [2001:22]), borrowed from chaos theory. 6 Abbott 2001:140. Posner similarly identifies "a set of activities with five components" (1989:17g), namely, a "(homogenous) domain," a "(unified) perspective," a "(central) method," "a (core) body of knowledge," or a "(dominant mode of) presentation" (1989:177-179). 7 The formation of the modern concept of religion therefore took place more or less in the period around 1750-1850, which Reinhart Koselleck has labeled "saddle" or "threshold time," as the period when most of the modem (Western) vocabulary that constitutes "moder nity" was shaped. Interestingly, there is no lemma for "religion" in Koselleck's main project of the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland (Brunner, Conze, and Koselleck 1972-1997); however, there is one on its counter term "secularization" in volume 5 of the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Conze, Stratz, and Zabel 1984:789-829), and another on "religion" in volume 8 of the Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie (Dierse et al. 1992:632-713).

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 45 opened the horizon of the "Western world" and also allowed a wider compara tive view on what was then called "religions," giving birth to a discipline first associated with the name "history of religion(s)," and then, with Max Miiller, "comparative religion" or "science of religion" (Religionswissenschafi), in con trast to the established discipline of Christian . With reference to Abbott, Anna Sun Xiao Dong has therefore tried to define the "cultural axis" of religious studies (or "comparative religion") mainly by the comparative method. However, in a central passage, she complements it correctly with two other elements, the idea of "" (or what may be called a univer sal view of a "history of religion") and the relationship to theology or other fields like history (Sun 2008:112-113). Starting with the Enlightenment, this was combined with the separation of "secular spheres" from "religious spheres" and reflections on the future role (or "fate") of religion in "modem ," how "religion" had to be related to other spheres of human life or subfields of societ ies, or the new idea of nation states.8 With the step beyond Christian and theology, and then especially with the development of other methods like comparative psychology, sociology and, later, phenomenology, applied to religion, religious studies methodologi cally emancipated itself from the methodological canon of theology (with its Christianity-centered exegetical, philological, dogmatic, historical, etc. meth ods). Furthermore, in the case of its development in the West, we have to con cede that this emancipation evolved only through a long, diverse process,9 and many contributions were often not clearly discernible as more philosophically subjective positional or "neutral" scholarly arguments. Anti-religious propo nents provoked religious apologists and urged them to rethink what "religion" would mean to them and to society. Accordingly, anti-religious and affirmative discourses together constituted the broader, antagonistic, modern Western discourse on religion. Basic standards of academic work, as well as historical, comparative, anthro pological, and psychological methods, were therefore fairly developed and had already been applied to religion at the time when these were also transferred to the East. Specialized publications and periodicals, more or less exclusively dedicated to the new topic, may serve as indicators of such a discourse. Of

8 For the development of the modern concept of religion, see the four volumes of Feil 1986 2007, or the long entry in the Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie (Dierse et al. 1992:632 713); cf. also the recent account in English, Nongbri 2013. 9 For the case of Max Miiller in Oxford, with strategic cooperation from the mission ary Sinologist James Legge, see Sun 2008:55-113 (Chapter 3, "The Settlement of the Term Controversy: and the Birth of Comparative Religion").

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 46 MEYER

special interest are, furthermore, introductory works, which represent a sub ject as a new field of its own, but also a range of monographs, dedicated to special major methodological or other problems.

Institutions and Forums of Discourse: Professorships, Conferences, Publication Series, and Periodicals Another essential element is the institutional aspect. It provides possibilities of self-organization for the participants, such as forums of discussion for the new subject, but also professorships, course and study programs, which allow a continuation and stability of a discipline in contrast to a "border field" by handing down the discipline's knowledge to disciples and later hiring new pro fessors from among them.10 If we look again at religious studies in the West, the institutional base of this new discipline developed at first slowly, but then in a strong wave around and after 1900, so that it is then reasonable to speak of the existence of a more established discipline. As relevant institutional aspects, one may specify the following:

1) Professorships: After only a handful of earlier positions and founding fig ures such as Max Miiller in Oxford (whose position was, however, not yet dedicated to comparative religion), Geneva (1873), Leiden and Amsterdam (1877, with Tiele and Chantepie de la Saussaye), and Paris at the Collège de France (Histoire des religions, 1879/1880) and then at the newly estab lished Fifth Section of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (ephe, 1886), there was a broader wave of new establishments of positions only after 1900 (e.g., in Germany at the University of Leipzig in 1912); 2) Conferences: Series of conferences explicitly dedicated to "religion" play an important role in the coherence of the emerging field, such as the First International Congress of History of Religions in 1900 in Paris, with schol ars participating from different disciplines (like sociology, ethnology, Indology, Buddhology, etc.);11

ίο Abbott, for example, highlights this criterion. As he says, "there is one central social struc ture signifying fall disciplinarity. That is reciprocity in acceptance of Ph.D. faculty. Border fields often employ faculty of diverse disciplines. We can think of them as having become true disciplines in the social structural sense once they hire mainly Ph.D.s in their own field... This test of social structural disciplinarity is much like the intergroup fertility standard used to define biological species" (2001:139-140). 11 Participants included Alfred Bertholet (History of Religion), Gaton Maspero (Egyptian Archaeology and Mythology), Alfred Foucher (Buddhist Art), Emile Durkheim (Sociology),

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 47

3) Publication series and periodicals, etc.: As early as the 1880s, we find spe cialized periodicals exclusively dedicated to the research of religion.12 Moreover, the famous series of translated sources for the study of reli gions, "The Sacred Books of the East," was edited by Miiller.13 Together with these monographs, partly published in a special series,14 they pro vided important forums of discussion and possibilities for the accumula tion of new materials and academic contributions.

All of these institutions together, most importantly professorships and study programs, constituted a base for a new, "full" academic discipline, which allowed a concentration on its own topics, the strengthening of networks, focusing and binding people, universities, and journals to a specialized and separate topic. Thereby, they gave this new project the chance of continuity and consistency by "disciplinary self-reproduction." Epistemic and institutional aspects are, of course, interdependent: with the aid of institutional support, scholarly discourse was not only promoted, but could also define its identity, thereby strengthening the consciousness of its subject, topics, and standards.15

Hermann Oldenberg (Buddhology), Nathan Soderblom (Histoiy of Religion), Edward B. Tylor (Anthropology) and Arnold van Gennep (Ethnography). A guest speaker was Swami Vivekananda. See also Jastrow 1900; cf. Wilson 2004. It was followed by other centers of early research on religion like Basel in 1904, Oxford in 1908, Leiden in 1912, Lund in 1929, and Brussels in 1935; cf. the list of past congresses on the International Association for the Histoiy of Religions website at http://www.iahr.dk/pastcon.php (accessed 9 September 2014). 12 Some examples include the Revue de L'histoire des religions, edited by the Musée Guimet and published by Colin (Paris) since 1880; the Arehcvfiir Religionswissenschaft, edited by Heidelberger Akademie derWissenschaften and Religionswissenschaftliche Gesellschaft Stockholm and published at Teubner (Leipzig and Berlin) from 1898-1942; and, mixed with missiological interests, the Zeitschrififiir Missionskun.de und Religionswissenschaft, edited by Allgemeiner Evangelisch-Protestantischer Missionsverein/Ostasienmission (Berlin) from 1886-1939. 13 It started with his own volume on the Upanishads in 1879, but also with Legge's first vol ume on China in the same year (1879). 14 More specialized publishers were, for example, in Germany, Diederichs (with its "Gelbe Reihe") or Mohr & Siebeck, who offered space for contributions of the Religions geschichtliche Schule. 15 For such mechanisms within and between disciplines, see also Abbott 2001.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 48 MEYER

Autonomy of the Field and its Relation to other Academic Fields and the Non-Academic Field (Society ) A third aspect is the relation of the academic field to other disciplines or society. While specialization and diversification led to new disciplines in the natural sciences especially, societal discourses were more decisive for disci plines of the humanities (like history, sociology, ethnology, and also religious studies). Disciplines developed as a function of society, and new groups, with new intellectual convictions and attitudes, did not find their approaches repre sented in the old canon. A major part of this development occurred in relation to the Enlightenment movement and the struggle against the domination of the churches in politics, society, and academia, and is therefore closely related to the idea of modernity. Often these processes have been regarded as one of emancipation, and indeed they helped new disciplines to be established, and academia as a whole to evolve from the dominance of traditional theology, thereby reflecting changes in society. In the case of religious studies, we find quite a complex process of eman cipation that only partly depended on church-critical tendencies. The devel opment of a liberal theology, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, was especially decisive for the fact that professorships of "history of religion" or "comparative religion" could be established within theological departments, integrating the new discipline in a widened theological perspective and canon. Aside from its complex relation to theology, however, its different roots, such as ethnology, classical and Asian philologies, as well as the new, more religion critical disciplines of sociology and psychology, with their specific perspectives, contributed to its emergence. Its interdisciplinary character, bound together by its subject, but not its methodology, preserved its diverse character, and even its institutional uncertainty, as relevant research on religion was often not carried out in departments of religious studies, even after more of them were established. At the same time, a certain degree of emancipation of the academic field, in contrast to public debates, was reached. This was partly due to the strong theoretical efforts made from different perspectives, which all were related by the keyword "religion," and so allowed and created academic debates in a relatively autonomous sphere distinct from societal forms of dis course, even if the motivations and interests of its contributors were rooted in diverse backgrounds.16 It is worth keeping these constellations in mind also when looking at the Chinese case.

i6 For a general overview of the early development and emancipation of religious studies, see Benavides 2006 or Stausberg 2008.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 49

We may briefly summarize as follows. The example of religious studies in the West may show us not only how a new discipline was born, but also how fresh the formation of this new academic field of religious studies indeed was just before it reached China. China did not have to invent religious studies again, nor did it have to go through the same process of emancipation of this discipline as occurred (and still occurs) in the West. As China adopted the model of "Western learning" (xixue 西學)and the institution of the modern, secular university, religious studies could be regarded as an optional part of this “modern” package, although a smaller part and one not established in all parts of Western academia. I turn now to explore how, under which discursive conditions, and when this transfer of knowledge took place.

The Development of Religious Studies in China, 1890-1949

East Asian Predecessor: Early Religious Studies in Japan A neologism to translate “religion,” zongjiao 宗教(in Japanese pronounced as shukyo)} was first coined in Japan and then transmitted to China. The transmis sion of the discipline through Japan played a limited role, but it still forms an important starting point and allows for comparative consideration of develop ments of the discipline beyond the West. While recent research has shown us when and how the Western term “religion,” translated in Japanese as Shûkyô 宗教(or zongjiao in Chinese), first entered China from Japan in the late nine teenth century and when it was finally applied in China (by the clarification of Liang Qichao) in the Western sense around 1902,17 it has not yet been clarified when and how the term zongjiaoxuef i.e., religious studies, was used in China for the first time and when this conveyed a consciousness of the existence of this new distinct discipline. First of all, in any case, the three Chinese characters seem to appear the earliest in Japan in the 1880s: already in 1884 the term Shûkyôgaku was used by Ishikawa Shundai 石川舜台 after Nanjô Bunyô 南條文雄（1849-1927), and Kasahara Kenju ぜ原研為：(1852-1883) had returned from a stay with Max Miiller in Oxford to learn Sanskrit and where they inevita bly encountered the new concept of “science of religion•” The term was then quite literally translated into Sino-Japanese (Suzuki 1970:157-158). In 1896, Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治ひ873-1949)，together with Kishimoto Nobuta 岸本武能太(1865-1927) and Yokoi Tokio 横井時雄(1857-1928), founded

17 See, especially, Chen Hsi-yuan 2002:37-65; cf. Chen Hsi-yuan 1999. For Liang, see also his important article "Baojiaofei suoyi zun Kong tun 保教非所以尊孔論”(1902).

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 50 MEYER the "Society of Comparative Study of Religion" (Hikaku Shûkyô Gakkai 比較宗教學會),one of the earliest academic societies for the study of reli gion, even by European standards. Anesaki Masaharu wrote an introduction in 1900, "Outline of Religious Studies” (Shûkyôgaku gairon 宗教學概論),and received a chair in 1905. Later, a periodical "Research on Religion" (Shûkyô kenkyu 宗敎石幵究）was started in 1916, whose first volume (1916-1917) included an article about " and ” as subdis ciplines of religious studies.18 It was followed by an article, "Religious Studies and " (Uno Enku 1916-1917), which dealt with the dif ferences and relationship of religious studies and the philosophy of religion, revealing a high standard of self-reflection and consciousness for the identity of the discipline as received from the West.19 These early developments in Japan might suggest that not only the trans lated term Shùkyô/zongjiao for religion but also the term and idea of religious studies as Shûkyôgaku/zongjiaoxue have entered China via Japan. However, we have to be aware that the grammatical form of the term zongjiaoxue with the common suffix xue (-logy/science of) follows a quite general and regular pat tern and could also have developed independently.

Early Transmissions to China in the 1890s and 1900s In China, the first major influence on the development of religious studies was a interest in comparative religion or history of religions: it was somehow based on liberal ' own Western education, trig gered by the Chicago World's Parliament of Religions in 1893, which attracted attention within missionary circles. Not only did some Christian missionar ies from China participate and present at the concomitant “Scientific Section” in Chicago, but this early global public event also brought attention to the approach of comparative religion, which was discussed in the influential peri odical Chinese Recorder and which led to the establishment of single courses dedicated to comparative religion in most liberal Christian colleges (and later universities) between 1893 and 1919. The main general motivation in this period was missionization, and the more particular concern was the improve ment of theological education, as seen in the pleading for such a course by the

i8 See Akamatsu Chijô 1916-1917:1-42, dealing with Durkheim, Mauss, Lévy-Bruhl, and the religious psychologists Edward Scribner Ames and James H. Leuba. 1 g For the beginnings of religious studies in Japan see, for example, Fujiwara 2006:8775-8780 or, more recently, the relevant chapters injosephson 2013:1-22.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES”

President of St. John's College in Shanghai, as described by F.C. Hawks Pott in his article, "How to Increase the Efficiency of our Native Workers” (1892).20 Interestingly, at this time, the term used for comparative religion was not yet zongjiaoxue} but mostly zhujiao cankao 諸教參考(literally, "Referring and checking between all religions”). The term zongjiao only became popularized in the 1900s and 1910s. This translation is also used in the two early textbooks, which were translations from obviously theologically influenced authors (Grant 1910 [1894] and Kellogg 1919 [1899]). The second early transmission took place around 1900 in a very different context, that of the famous “Hundred Days” reform movement led by Kang Youwei (1858-1927) in 1898. These two channels of transfers, mission and reform intellectuals, characterize the general transfer of knowledge from the West at this time. However, it is important to mention that there was almost no interaction between both milieus on this issue until the 1920s. Therefore, in the early 1900s the very term “religion,” translated as zonqjiaot was received from Japan and started becoming popular and widely used in pub lic (especially through the engagement of the major reform intellectual Liang Qichao 梁启夂超）and focused on the question of to what extent Confucianism was a “religion” or zongjiao (cf. Chen Hsi-yuan 1999 ana 2002). Scholarly articles specializing in history of religion or comparative religion, however, were mar ginal: though the term zongjlaoxue appears in a few instances, its use as a rubric in a reform journal, for example, rather denoted a wider field or knowledge without any relation to the more specific discipline of “science of religion” or "comparative religion.”21 In summary, from the 1890s, we can first identify engagement with “religion” as an object of study through missionary transmission, some limited teaching of curriculum in religious studies, and some minor efforts related to the reform movement around and after 1900.22 Although these efforts remained limited,

20 For a fuller account of this early development, see Meyer 2014:297-340. For the only offi cial Chinese presentation in Chicago, see Peng 1896 or Barrows 1893. 21 See, for example, the short-lived journal Xinshijie xuebao 新世界學報 with a rubric zongjiaoxue (here to be translated as “Studies in Religion”) next to history (shixue 史學)， psychology (xinlixue 心理學),"military studies” (bingxue 兵學)，and others. Zongjiao appeared also as a rubric in the journals Qingyibao 清議報(edited by Liang Qichao) and the Dongfang zazhi 東方雜誌.Articles under this rubric could treat topics of history of religions (such as Brahmanism), but also more political articles referring to the question of Confucianism as “religion” (zongjiao) or even (guojiao 國教)• 2 2 For an early minor example of introducing comparative religion as part of Western learn ing to the Chinese, see Edkins i8g8:2oA-30B. In this phase, as we will see, the idea of religious studies was not yet successfully received.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 52 MEYER they also provided some starting points for the sudden rise and fuller public attention paid to the field in the 1920s. In the following, I turn to my major focus on the 1920s, when domestic discourses and circumstances of public debate on religion were at the apex of their influence. As such, I show how general debates are critical internal factors for understanding the emergence of religious studies in Republican China.

The Emergence of Religious Studies in the Context of the 1920s Debates on the Future Role of Religion: The First Publications and Introductory Works Explicitly Devoted to zongjiaoxue This situation only changed in the 1920s, when political frameworks and discur sive conditions had been altered substantially. Confucianism as a hegemonic ideology or orthodoxy related to the imperial state had lost its institutional backing together with the end of the imperial system in 1911. It did not regain a privileged status in education in the new Chinese Republic as its supporters in the constitutional debates finally lost the battle against a front of religious (especially Christian and Buddhist) and secular representatives who insisted on freedom of (or nonbelief), which included for them equality among all teachings.23 However, this front against Confucianism split up again in subsequent debates when radical secular elements started attacking all religions in line with their earlier arguments against Confucianism as backward and feudalis tic. Similar attacks were further launched against local popular religious prac tice that was denounced as superstition (mixin 迷信). Religious supporters, on the contrary, drew a clear line between so-called lower religion, such as local and popular religion, and their own traditions as “higher religions,” which would often include Christianity, but also Buddhism and even Confucianism or philosophical Daoism. Clearly, and quite remark ably, fronts had been changing several times from the late imperial period due to strategic reasons: from a period when Christian missionaries were mostly clearly opposing any Chinese religious traditions — with the noteworthy exceptions of state-sanctioned Confucianism and, more rarely, Buddhism 一 and regarding the adherents of these “heathen” traditions as mere targets of mission, to a united and common front against Confucianism when there was the chance to dethrone it, to a new situation when Christianity, together with other religions, became itself the object of harsh attacks by radical secularists. It was in this situation that religious studies also became an object of interest, not solely as a means of missionary education of future pastors to be trained,

23 For an overview of these events, see Liu 2012.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 53 but now rather as a common field of debate after the concept of "science" and of academia as a separate field had entered Chinese society and intellectual thinking. The most important debates concerned first an earlier public academic series of lectures organized by the Young China Study Association (Shaonian Zhongguo xuehui 少年中國學會)in 1920-1921, instigated by a radical group of secularist intellectuals and representatives of "scientism"24 This debate still ended in a situation that showed the radicals as a minority against religious and liberal supporters of freedom of religious belief. A second wave, however, was less academic but more political, and linked this question with strong agi tation against the “imperialist” presence and privileges of Western Christianity, especially in the educational sector where Christian religion was taught as an integral part of the general curriculum. As we will see, these politicized efforts from around 1922 to 1927 especially intensified debates25 and finally helped to introduce religious studies not only as an academic field, but also as an insti tutionalized discipline. It was these public debates — with academic as well as political aspects intermingling 一 that led to a rise of religious studies from its marginal position 一 only at Christian schools and colleges and a handful of early publications — to the center of attention and academic production. This astonishing development shall be portrayed in the following pages. The very first writing in this new phase was an article “Explaining the Urgent Need for Studying Religious Studies” (Shuoming yanjiu zonqjiaoxue zhi jinyao 說明研究宗教學之緊要）in February 1919 by the young scholar and Peking University student Jiang Shaoyuan 江紹原（1898-1983).26 Interestingly, it pre ceded the two mentioned debates, but reflected early interests in the role of reli gion in such writings as Cai Yuanpei's influential article uYl mefyu dai zongjiao shuo 以美育代宗教說” (Replacing Religion with Aesthetic Education), origi nally published in Xin Qingnlan 3, no. 6 (1917), or similar writings. Different from Cai, who later acted as a main intellectual leader of the Anti-religious Movement, Jiang Shaoyuan, however, already pleaded at this point in time for a more neutral academic discipline that should be neither religious nor anti religious. It is also the first instance, so far, in which I have identified the use of the term zongjiaoxue in the Chinese context that is clearly in the Western

24 For a fuller account of this lecture series and the following debates, see Meyer forthcoming. 25 As a useful collection of contributions from both rounds of debate, see Zhang Qinshi 1927. 26 The article was published in the first volume of the Peking University Monthly {Beijing daxueyuekan 北京大學月刊）in the second issue, together with two other academic articles on religion, and already reflects the growing academic interest in religion at that time.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 54 MEYER sense of the distinct discipline of religious studies. An influence of the earlier Japanese use of Shûkyôgaku is possible, but there is no evidence, as Jiang refers here primarily to Western sources. Only shortly later did the young Jiang go abroad to study comparative religion at Chicago. In 1922, a leading intellectual and the President of Peking University, Cai Yuanpei himself, called for a discipline of religious studies that should be established within the humanities and substitute theological departments at Christian colleges.27 Within days, his call was countered by a group of Christian scholars who pointed out that they (and their colleagues) already possessed expertise in teaching comparative religion at their institutions. They further complained that the attackers did not understand the very character and structure of the discipline, including its subfields such as philosophy of religion, psychology of religion, comparative religion, or history of religions.28 Their spokesperson, Jian Youwen 簡又文(Timothy Ren Yu-wen), who had himself just returned from studies in the U.S. where he had taken courses in religious studies at the University of Chicago Divinity School, was preparing a new (however, not long-lived) series on “Religious Studies,” with a first volume coming out at the same time.29 Soon after, he became the first Chinese teacher of history of religion at Yenching University (1924-1925).30 While these instances most explicitly show the connection of the debates with the interest in the new discipline, the following wave of new introductory works, which occurred in the years just after these events, with a climax dur ing 1925-1926, demonstrates the factual consequences in the field of academic

27 Cai Yuanpei, "Beijing feizongjiao dahui yanjiang zkiyi 北京非宗教大會言講之一,” as found in Zhang Qinshi 1927:199-201. For a similar call in a polemic from the same year by Wangjingwei 汪精衛,the later leader of the left wing of the Guomindang, see his contri bution uFei zongjiao datongmeng 非宗教大同盟” and "Shehuijiaoyuying zhiçyi de wenti 社會教育應注意的問題” in Fei zongjiao lun (1922); on the Anti-Christian Movement, see also Hodous 1930:490. 28 See Ducyu Feizongjiaoyundongxuartyan 對於非宗教運動宣言,which was signed byjian Youwen 簡又文(at that time the editor at the Christian publishing house Guangxuehui in Shanghai), Fan Zimei 范子美(also Fan Bihui 范百百1866-1939, the first Chinese edi tor of the Wanguo gongbao, later working at the journal Qingnian jinbu 青年進步,both in Shanghai), Yang Yihui 楊益惠(ymca), YingYuandao 應元道(ymca), and Guo Shijian 郭志堅,in Zhang Qinshi 1927:207-212; cf. 207-208. 29 The first volume, Xin zongjiaoguan 新宗教觀（A New Point of View), edited by Jian Youwen 簡又文 himself, appeared in 1922 with a preface date of May 1922 (see Jian Youwen 1923). The concept of religious studies (in Chinese as zongjiaoxue) is used in the preface. 30 For more information on Jian, see Meyer 2014.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 55 publications. Moreover, most of the following translations were published by the secular Commercial Press (Shangwuyinshuguant in Shanghai) and hereby reflect a public interest in the matter beyond pro and contra positions. The first publication of this sort was the article "Bijiao zongjiaoxue gailun 比較宗教學概論” by Yan Jicheng 嚴既澄(born 1900) in 1923, who, two years later in 1925, published a translation from the English original of Comparative Religion by Frank Byron Jevons (Jevons [Zefengzi] 1925). Simultaneously, and shortly after, we find several introductory as well as monographic works addressing religious studies explicitly as zongjiaoxue in their title, while oth ers clearly treat the same content. In 1925, aside from Yan Jicheng's transla tion, there was also the translated introductory work of Japanese origin, Ajima Takeshi's 安島健 Zongjlao wenda 宗敎問答（Questions and Answers about Religion), translated and commented on by Gan Haoze 甘浩澤.31 In 1926 and 1928, we find a new introduction by Lin Buji 林步基 with the older title Zhujiao cankao 諸教參考（i926),32 as well as two titles by Xie Songgao, Zhujiao de yanjiu 諸教的研究[Studies about [all] religions] (Xie Songgao and Yu Muren 1926) and Zongjiaoxue abc (Xie Songgao 1928), which again uses the explicit key term zongjiaoxue. His works provide an overview of the main "world religions” and, like most of the introductions, relied heavily on Western works. Xie himself had also studied abroad in tne U.S. snortly before then. Another channel of transfer, which is also tangible in publications, was that of missionary works. In 1925, Karl Ludvig Reichelt (1877-1952), the Norwegian Lutheran missionary, protégé, and admirer of the famous historian of religion Nathan Sôderblom,33 published a book, Zongjiao gailun 宗教概論 (A Short Study of the Essence of Religion),34 a collection of his course lec tures. Furthermore, in the 1930s, we find a translated work of the missionary J.W. Inglis, titled Zongjiao bijiaoxue 宗敎比較學(Comparative Religion) (Inglisi937).

31 Ajima Takeshi 1925. This work is a translation from Ajima Takeshi's book Shûkyô no wa 宗教の話(1923). 32 Not to be confused with the eariier missionary work of the same title (Kellogg 1919). 33 See Sharpe 1984:67-70. Reichelt, who also published as a researcher of Buddhism, dedi cated his book Truth and Tradition in Chinese Buddhism (originally published as Fra Ostens Religiose Ltv in 1922) to the Swede Sôderblom; cf. Sharpe (1984:70). 34 See Ai Xiangde 1925. Together with the Chinese scholar Wang Zhixin 王治心，he also worked on A Christian Stucfy about Buddhism (Wang Zhixin 1924). For his curriculum that included comparative religion in the 1930s after he had moved to the Fong Shan at Hong Kong, see Daofeng qikan 1934:94,97.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 56 MEYER

In the 1930s, there are even more works from authors from various back grounds; we find the first overview of the history of religions in China by the Protestant scholar Wang Zhixin 王治心（i88i-1968) in 1933,35 and two other translations from the Japanese, including a translation of Allan Menzies' History of Religion (in its early edition) (Katô Genchi 1933; Uchiyama Snonyô 1940), as well as an introduction to religion by the Catholic writer Xu Zongze 徐宗澤（1939). The first Buddhist work of this sort, an introductory “General Outline of Religion," was published byXuxin 虛心(1935) and, finally, still in the Republican period, a work titled Zongjiaoxue by the Buddhist master Datong 大同 was published in 1947. While Christian publications clearly substituted the two earlier textbooks — translated by missionaries and used for school purposes in Christian colleges and middle schools from the 1910s — they now gradually opened up to a wider audience. This can clearly be seen by a comparison of the two previously men tioned textbooks by Xie Songgao from 1926 and 1928; the first one was still designed for internal textbook use at Christian schools, while the second one was published in a series from a secular publisher. At the same time, secular contributions were not at all anti-religious in the radical sense. Instead, most of these secular translators held rather moderate liberal attitudes. In general, and also beyond the mentioned titles of introductory works, it is possible to state that there was clearly a strong wave of new publications about “religion” or even explicitly about (comparative) religious studies in general, which did not occur to the same degree earlier in China. While it is not always easy to differentiate if all works about "religion" can be categorized under “religious studies,” the introductory works mentioned clearly indicate an approach that introduced the Western model of religious studies to China, whether through translation or original scholarship and writing. Beyond the key term zongJiaoxue} which might not always imply a clear distinct methodology, the use of bijiao zongjiao (xue) (comparative [study of] religion), clearly indicates the perceived major characteristics of the new dis cipline. Although the origin of the Chinese use of zongjiaoxue (replacing the earlier missionary zhujiao cankao) is not absolutely clear and the term may be borrowed from Japan directly or indirectly, channels of transfer for the discipline were more dominantly Western: though there were translations from Japanese (with three titles in 1923,1933, and 1940), most of the translated

35 “Outline of the History of Religious Thought in China” (Zhongguo zongjiao sixiang shi dagang 中國宗教思想史大綱）(Wang Zhixin 1933). It is based on and enlarged from Wang Zhixin's 王治心 earlier 1926 work, Zhongguo iishi de shangdiguan 中國歷史的上 帝觀(The Idea of in Chinese History), which resembles some titles in the West..

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 57 introductory works to the new discipline 一 or sources of newly written ones 一 were of Western, mainly English, origin. Besides, the only introductory work written by a Chinese author in the 1920s came from a Christian, and was only later followed among others by Buddhist works.

Limited Institutionalization: Chances and Hindrances As we have seen, the development in regard to our second element, the insti tutional level, took its time in the West, such as in Germany, where profes sorships were only established after 1900, and even later for most positions in North America, excluding Chicago, Harvard, and some others.36 In China, almost at the same time, institutional changes also took place at the university level when the first introductory works were published. As discussed, the mis sionary universities or colleges had, since the 1890s, dealt with the topic of reli gion in their general curricula and theological departments and, by the 1910s, courses in comparative religion had been introduced in most liberal Protestant colleges. Moreover, in the early and mid-i920s, two or three Christian institutions grew from theological schools to religion departments in a broader sense. They included the new, liberal Yenching University,37 which in the first half of the 1920s already provided, aside from its more theological curriculum, courses such as "history of religion,” "psychology of religion,” or “comparison of religions” (zonqjiao bijiao) (Ng îgggb'.si; cf. 59). Beginning in 1925, especially under the

36 See, for example, Shepard 1991, as well as his much longer original Ph.D. dissertation. The other four in the period from 1880-1930 were Boston University, Cornell University, University, and the University of . As we will see, the American univer sities, especially the two mentioned above, were most decisive for the transfer of knowl edge in religious studies to China, as Christian as well as other Chinese students studied at these locations. 37 For materials on the curricula at Yenching University, see box 308, folder 4744-4747 ("Course announcements") in Archives of the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia 1882-1974. In 1924, the college dean, William Hung (Hong Ye 洪業), explained that the aims of a religious course were to cultivate among the students “a habit of religious appreciation," "a recognition of a wider variety of religious ideas and experi ences," and "an acquaintance with a larger range of religious literature," so that the stu dents would be able to “make some definite choice for their own good” (1924:280-281).Ng judges, “This is a very modern understanding of how religion should be taught within an educational context and was made so explicitly by a Christian professor in China as early as 1924” (19993:8). Ng's interpretation fits, however, into a current religious educationalist interest in religious studies and the British “multi-faith” model of . Ng received his Ph.D. from the Institute of Education at the University of London.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms MEYER new dean John Leighton Stuart (1876-1962) (Ng 199^:51), "historical sense and scientific attitude and technique” as well as "thorough-going academic work" were emphasized,38 echoing the ongoing wave of scientism and the growing value of modern science. Similarly, the Religion Department of the Christian Lingnan University (formerly Canton Christian College) developed from a predominantly theological curriculum 一 which included an early course in comparative religion already in 1917 (taught by a missionary, Alexander Baxter, from the London Missionary Society)39 — to a more open curriculum of “religion” in general, including courses in the history of religion, specialized courses on the Chinese religious tradition, as well as religious psychology.40 A third example was the Religion Department of Cheeloo University (Ji'nan, Shandong), which developed a wider curriculum in the 1930s. Single courses were still offered at Shanghai St. John's, the Christian University of Nanking, Ginling College (Nanjing), and Fukien Christian University. Some liberal missionaries and many Christian Chinese scholars not only regarded comparative religion as a natural part of a liberal Christian curricu lum, as they knew it from their own educational background, but they also pursued a project of cultural (religious) indigenization of Christianity in China, which even preceded the later attacks from critics of religion. It had its origins in inner missionary developments since the first World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910 and the concept of indigenization that gained popularity at that time. They attempted to make "points of contact” in the indigenous Chinese tradition, including within its religions. Slightly later, however, it was the strong wave of anti-Christian and more general anti-religious movements in the early and mid-ig20s that led to an even stronger apologetic interest in religious studies.

38 Edwards 1959:304; see also, in more detail,Ng 19998:6-7. 39 Later in 1923, the title was changed to “History of Religions." In 1926, in Chinese it was listed more comprehensively as Zongjiao bijiao ji gejiao lishi 宗教比較及各教歷史 [Comparative Religion and History of Each Religion]; see Canton Christian Colleges, Bulletin no.10, Catalogue of the College of Arts and Sciences (academic year 1917-1918); Canton 1917, 45, no. 34 (academic year 1923-1924); Canton 1923, 88-89; and Bulletin of the academic year 1926-1927, 78 (Archives of the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia 1882-1974). 40 See especially Sili Lingnan daxue yilan 私立嶺南大學ー覽（Bulletin of Lingnan University), Canton 私立嶺南大學，academic year 1930-1931; (Catalogs, bulletins 1899 1946), 70-71; cf. 132-134 (religion), 125-128 (philosophy), or Bulletin for the academic year 1929-1930, 48-49 in box 181, folder (reels) 3246-3251 (Archives of the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia 1882-1974); for a more thorough analysis of curricula or courses on religion at Lingnan and other universities, see my forthcoming book on this subject

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 59

Except for the growth of curricula, which continued especially at Yenching and Lingnan into the 1930s until half of the religion department curriculum was non-theological, some institutional changes took place that finally lim ited such institutional developments. Paradoxically, these limiting influences have to do with the calls for an independent discipline of religious studies, such as the one mentioned by Cai Yuanpei in 1922. In the mid-i920S, as part of the so-called Anti-religious/Anti-Christian Movement (1922-1927) and the general nationalist and anti-imperialist tide, the "Restoration of Educational Rights Movement” (shouhuijiaoyuquan 收回教育權）developed and reached a peak in 1925. In the same year, the government in Beijing41 and, after 1928, the new Nationalist Guomindang government, demanded private universities, especially Christian missionary institutions, to apply for accreditation by the state and, therefore, to be in accord with its standards (Ng 199^:52). Due to the general anti-imperialist attitude as well as the ideological positions of the Guomindang itself, theological or religion departments or even any compul sory courses in religion were not accredited within state-registered universi ties. Ironically, this also ended any ambitions for "religious studies" as a secular subject at non-Christian universities, as any kind of religious curriculum would not be accredited. Simultaneously, this laid pressure on most of the Christian missionary universities and colleges to rethink and reorganize their structure. As for one concession they made, courses on religious instruction were made non compulsory.42 Instead of naming departments “Schools of Theology,” most universities had already preferred the name "Religion Department” for their religion-related curricula within the colleges of arts (and overlapping with their specific theological schools).43 Furthermore, the character of these departments was successively widened to an even more comprenensive

41 “Their [the Chinese governments regulations of 1925] demands were as follows: a. Any institution of whatever grade established by funds contributed from foreigners... will be allowed to make application for recognition at the office; e. the institution shall not have as its purpose the propagation of religion; [and] f. the curriculum of such an institution should conform to the standards set by the Ministry of Education. It shall not include religious courses among the required sub jects" (Ng i999a:i, quoting E. Wallace's "Report on Christian Education in China”). 42 Ng 1999^6-7 emphasizes that the religious purposes were rather reformulated and kept Religious courses were explicitly elective, but offered within the whole university (with examples from the academic year of 1929-1930) as an "attempt to integrate religious courses into the whole university curriculum." Only St John's University in Shanghai decided not to register; cf. Yeh 1990. 43 For the changing names of the Religion Department at Yenching University, see Ng 1999^:52.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 6o MEYER

"School of Religion" (or "Department of Religious Studies" [zongjlao xueyuan 宗教學院]in the case of Yenching) by the mid- to late 1920s. Not only were single courses in "comparative religion" taught, but a wide variety of topics like Buddhism, Islam, Daoism, Confucianism, and "studies of Chinese religion(s),” as well as Indian philosophy, Laozi, and Mozi, also became part of the curricu lum (Ng lgggb^).44 In spite of these changes away from a clearly theology dominated program, there was no chance for these departments to receive official acknowledgment. The same courses would therefore be simultane ously offered as part of state-acknowledged departments and programs, such as philosophy (especially at Lingnan University in Canton) and various oth ers (including Chinese and foreign literature, history, or philosophy, such as at Yenching University in Peking). Positions and courses even continued to develop in defiance of this problem of official acknowledgment. However, outside of Christian schools with their special institutional back ground and funding 一 and with the exception of Hong Kong University 一 no professorships or departments were dedicated to the field of religion at secular schools. Even Cai Yuanpei, who had called for religious studies as a new sub ject, did not install such a department in his newly-founded Academia Sinica in 1928. Nevertheless, experts from different fields and in various departments, such as history, philosophy, and ethnology, also started teaching and writing extensively on religious matters (cf. Meyer forthcoming). This reflects the interdisciplinary and boundary character of the new discipline in general as well as the specific Chinese situation. Finally, the institutional problem is reflected in the missing self-organiza tion through professional associations, conferences, or in the field of specialized publishing opportunities and forums. In sharp contrast to Japan, with its "Society for Comparative Religion”（1896), the first chair for Anesaki Masaharu in 1905, and its early periodical Shûkyô kenkyû, Republican China never established a periodical exclusively dedicated to religious studies. The same is the case for publishers' series. Publications had to fit in either more Christian series on

44 Ng 19993:8-9 summarizes the full program of courses in religion with the names of the teachers: Xu Dishan 許地山 with altogether four courses ("Primitive Religion[s],” "Comparative Religion[s],w "Confucianism and Daoism,” and "Buddhist Literature"), the historian Chen Yuan 陳垣 with two ("Mohammedanism" and “Studies in the in China"), Hung Yeh 洪業（“History of Christianity"), Xu Baoqian 徐寶謙 (“Problems in Religion"), Zhao Ziehen 趙紫衰（“Religious Implications of Contemporary Philosophy"), Liu [Lew] Tingfang 案!1廷芳 for courses in psychology of religion, B. Wiant for “Religious Music," and Mrs. T.C. Greene for “History of Religious Arts in the West.”

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 6l religion, mixed with books of a clearly theological character,45 or other, even more general academic series or periodicals.46 With its ambitious publish ing plan, an interesting exception was in some respects the above-mentioned short-lived “The Religious Studies Series” (original title in English; Zongjiao yanjiu congshu 宗敎研究叢書),published by the Christian Shanghai pub lisher Guangxuehui and edited by the Christian scholar Jian Youwen (Ren Yu-wen). It was, however, never fully realized and, from 1922-1923, only four volumes appeared that followed a particularly theological agenda.47

The Interdisciplinary Character of Religious Studies as a Border Field: Groups of Contributors and Their Respective Motivations and Backgrounds

Even under the new Guomindang government, the growth of dedicated departments was limited by the impossibility of formally registering a religious studies department or curriculum with the authorities. As such, publications contributing to the field flourished widely beyond the small circle of scholars who held positions explicitly dedicated to religion or religious studies with insti tutional affiliation. This allows us to speak about a field of religious studies in a broader sense, but indicates a missing degree of integrity in the discipline within the academic field, on the one hand, and of its autonomy towards

45 Yenching University was especially productive in publishing with 269 titles alone during 1930-1932 (Edwards 1959:306), but it is not clear what percentage was theological versus non-theological religious studies publications. For theological and other confessional periodicals, see also Lôwenthal 1940. 46 In the case of Yenching University, we have a clearly theological periodical, Truth and Life (Zhenliyu Shengming 真理與生命),in which most of the theological professors of the Religion Department often published short articles, and a high-standard, non-theological academic periodical, the Yanjing xuebao 無示學,but none of these were clearly dedi cated to religious studies. 47 In their original plan, the editors of the first volume wanted to create a series which would include the branches of philosophy of religion, theology of religion (zongjiao shenxue 宗教神學),comparative religion {zongjiao bijiaoxue 宗教比較學),as well as the rela tion of “religion to science, philosophy and socialism" (Preface of the general editor Fan Bihui in Jian Youwen 1923:9); cf. the second volume on "Religion and Science” (Jian Youwen 1922), which is a collected translation of three English works: J.M. Coulter's The Co-operation of Religion and Science (n.d.), E.G. Conklin's Evolution and Religion (n.d.), and A.S. Wooburne's The Relation between Religion and Science (n.d.).

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 62 MEYER public debates, on the other. It therefore reflects the close connection and interdependence of the general public and academic discourses about religion. A mixed perspective of looking at relevant disciplinary engagements and personal motivations will shed light on this broader interdisciplinary field. The motivations especially reflect the wider public interest in and debates on religion with anti- and pro-religious as well as more neutral (or moderating) positions. At the same time, their personal inclinations led scholars to become involved in various disciplinary fields such as history (of religion), philosophy (of religion), or ethnology, etc. 一 fields that in the West also would be related to different theoretical approaches and attitudes towards religion. I would therefore like to differentiate roughly between three fields related to different attitudes and strategies.

Scholars Closely Linked to Religious Studies in a Narrower Sense The first group of scholars to be considered are those closest to religious studies in an explicit (and therefore narrower) sense by their positions and/ or the titles of their publications. As indicated above, most of these people were Christian scholars, as it was only at Christian schools where positions and courses in religious studies 一 also beyond the theological-Christian curriculum 一 could exist and expand. The other main contributors who explicitly used the term “religious studies” (or "comaprative religion,” etc.) in their titles were translators of introductory works. Yet, most of these transla tors were hardly known except for their translations in this or in other fields, except the well-known Jiang Shaoyuan, who later engaged in the field of eth nology and folklore studies. For the Christian authors, I have argued that they opened up to the public and used the “rational” and “scientific” way of speaking about religion in the new discipline of “religious studies” as a way of arguing in an increasingly secu lar environment where values like rationality, individuahty, social ethics, and cultural contributions to society functioned as arguments (Meyer 2008-2009 and 2009). Moreover, a distancing from so-called “primitive” or “lower” reli gion was an important motif. The philosopher of religion Xie Fuya 謝扶雅, who had also taken courses in history of religion and comparative religion at Chicago and Harvard before entering Lingnan University, may also count in this category, especially with his influential work of 1928, Zongjiao zhexue 宗教哲學(Philosophy of Religion), which clearly reflects the religion debates of the mid-i920s (cf. Meyer 2008-2009). Although it was meant to be a phil osophical work, large parts (more than half of the whole book) introduced theories or material from religious studies (partly arranged in a historical, evolutionary manner, and partly according to a theoretical approach). Such

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 63

apologetic works developed, in general, from the special background of the 1920s, the strong wave of Anti-Christian and Anti-religious Movements. This included in a wider sense the struggles between defenders of so-called "meta physics" or “philosophy of life,” like the modern Neo-Confucian, Zhang Junmai 張君勤,and his opponents such as Hu Shi 古月適,who saw religion mainly as a hindrance to the development of science and democracy, or at the very least, superfluous. With the help of religious studies, Xie argued that there was a sci entific way of dealing with religion, which is not just superstition or meaning less ideology. Religious studies, as it was formed in the West (with its partially liberal, theological background), appeared as a more objective way of looking at religion and at least provided a way of reasoning in intellectual, academic, and societal discourse. Other, though less systematic, examples were statements from modern Confucian scholars (like Zhang Junmai) or Buddhists (like Taixu 太虛）and others.48 Their works may only partly count as "Religious Studies" in a stricter sense (even in the case of Xie Fuya), but they often referred to it, utilizing it within a wider, more philosophical or religious argumentation. However, they often strongly contributed to the field by introducing theories and ideas beyond a strict historical approach.

Scholars Mainly Engaged in Historical Research on Religion A second important field of research was that of historical research on religion, in which one might even find continuities with Chinese traditional scholar ship in critical historiograDhv or philology. Both kinds of influence, traditional and modern, created in the early twentieth century a new Chinese historiog raphy that also included the concept and questions of "religion." Examples of meritorious efforts in this field were, amongst others, the famous “two Chen,” Chen Yinke 陳寅恪(1890-1969) and Chen Yuan 陳垣(i88o-1971). Even if they held positions as historians, large portions of their works were dedicated to research on religions in China. In the late 1910s and early 1920s, Chen Yuan pioneered in works on the history of , Parsism, Judaism, and early Christianity in China, but wrote also on Chinese Islam, Buddhism, and Daoism.49 His thorough examinations won him general high recognition as

48 For the Buddho-Confucian view on religion of Liang Shuming, see Wesolowski 1997. 49 See, for example, his early "Four Studies of Old Teachings [or Religions]” (Gujiao sikao 古教四考)，including Yucuiyelikewenjiao kao 元也里可温教考 about Christianity in the Mongolian Yuan dynasty, written as early as 1917; Kaifeng yicileyeiiao kao _封一賜樂業教考 about the history of in Kaifeng (1919); the Huoxianjiao ru Zhongguo kao 火扶教入中國考 about Parsism from 夏ran in Tang dynasty in 1922; and

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms MEYER a historian of religions. However, a closer look reveals that there were in fact personal motivations and a hidden agenda involved, as Chen was actually a Christian, a fact unknown to many of his contemporaries.50 His works focused especially on other religions that were hitherto neglected in the dominant Chinese historiography, including early forms of Christianity. Chen's research thereby made clear that these traditions had a much longer history on Chinese soil and could not just easily be labeled as “foreign,” based on the charge that Christianity was a "Western" or "foreign teaching” (yanqjiao 洋教),which was in line with the hegemonic discourses of his time. Quite importantly, Chen's research also influenced the first general intro duction of a history of by the Christian author Wang Zhixin (1933), as well as his later Outline of Christianity in China (1940), the first book of this sort. Moreover, at the same time, other historical overviews of par ticular religious traditions in China were written such as histories of Daoism, Buddhism, and Islam in China, which all appeared in the 1930s and 1940s, reflecting a general and growing academic interest in religions. Authors were often, but not always, of the same religion as their object of research, or sym pathetic to it. A famous example here is one of the first two Histories of Daoism, written by the Christian historian of religion, Xu Dishan 許地山（1893-1941), who was also known as a literary writer. Originally trained at the Universities of Columbia and Oxford as an expert on Indian and comparative religion, back in China he taught first at Yenching and then Hong Kong University, and turned to research on local Chinese traditions. This included Buddhism and Daoism, as well as popular religion. While Xu Dishan was openly known as Christian, this did not become practically clear from most of his scholarly works. The labeling of some popular religious practices as “superstition” (mixin 迷信)in a pioneering study on so-called planchette-writing (or spirit-writing,扶箕） seemed to reflect general views critical of such practices in his time, but in fact Xu showed some sympathy to these local practices and those who practiced them (Xu Dishan 1941; cf. Chen Weiqiang 2002 and Fung 2010). In general, interest in national histories of particular religious traditions, as they appeared especially in the 1930s, reflects the wider discourse on national identity as part of the discourse on modernization (on this aspect, see Meyer 2014).

Monijiao ru Zhongguo kao 摩尼教入中國考 about Manichaeism in China (1922) (all included in Chen Yuan 1993). Later, he dedicated further intensive research to Buddhism (cf. Zhongguo fojiao shiji gailun 中國佛教史籍概論（Chen Yuan 1955)) and Islam (Huihuijiao ru Zhongguo shilue 回回教人中國史略,included in Chen Yuan 1993). See Liu Xian 2005 and 2006; see also Kuhlmann 2014:354.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 65

Ethnological and Folklore Studies (and the Critical School of Historiography) as the Favorite Fields of Critics of Religion Finally, a third important field of research on religion includes ethnological and folklore studies, simultaneously related and overlapping with fields such as cultural anthropology, sociology and, within history especially, the skepti cal "School of Doubting Antiquity." Typical representatives of this research belonged to the more radical wing of the critical New Culture and May Fourth Movement. In general, they held rather anti-religious and anti-traditionalist attitudes, and made it their project to re-evaluate and filter their own tradi tional heritage through new modern perspectives. This could include a criti cal re-reading of the classics, which were not any longer taken as norms for the conduct of daily life, but rather analyzed as literary genres such as (shenhua 神話)or popular songs (e.g., in the Shijing), etc. Examples include the historian Gujiegang 顧吉頁岡!!，or the early researchers of Chinese mythol ogy, Wen Yiduo 聞一多 or Mao Dun 矛盾,but also many others. The classical expert Zhou Yutong 周予1 ロJ, for example, identified the neglected material of the apociyphal (chenwei 讖緯)Han texts as the best material of Chinese ethnology and history of religion, and explicitly called for scholars of these disciplines to study it (1996:422). Another interest that partly grew out of this movement was in popular customs, including religious, local, or popular traditions. This was the start of ethnological research in China, including field research, which, as typical Western approaches and theories were applied, was also strongly connected to religion. A good example of the critical, but partly also sympathetic, interest in religion by this group is Zhou Zuoren 周作人(1885-1967), who started as a radical in the New Culture or May Fourth Movement as an essay-writer and harsh attacker of feudalist and even “primitive” religion(s), including ritualis tic Confucianism (lijiao 禮教),which he labeled as (Zhou Zuoren 2002 [i925]:2i9-22i). He also attacked the hitherto highly valued ancestral wor ship as “primitive” (Zhou Zuoren 2002 [1919] :4一6). In all his essays, he relies heavily on Western categories mostly taken from anthropology, particularly from his readings of Andrew Lang, Jane Ellen Harrison, and others. Soon after 1927, he became much more moderate and positively interested in local, osten sibly “superstitious” traditions and customs (cf. "About [the god] Duke Guan [Guandi]” [uTan Guangong 談關公”],Zhou Zuoren 2002 [i937]:4o6-4io), or about local processions ("Guanyu jishenyinghui 關於祭神迎會”,Zhou Zuoren 2002 [i943]:25o-256), He finally leaned towards a model of transforming tra ditional heritage, such as local customs, into material art and culture. His role model was the West's adoption of ancient Greek and Roman myths and how they had been used for reflective thinking, symbolization (euhemerism),

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 66 MEYER and sublimation in art. With his early phase as a radical critic, but later as an observer and collector of popular customs 一 similar to some contemporary ethnologists 一 he embodies both a radical and a moderate critical approach and motivation towards the study of religions.51

Religious Studies as a Broader Interdisciplinary Field This general survey represents "research on religion” as a broader interdisci plinary field in which “religion” plays a role as a basic concept of modernity related to other concepts such as nation, state, culture, society, rationality, ethics, etc. — much beyond the narrower borders of one single academic discipline. The interaction of different attitudes and projects related to reli gion, especially anti-religious and apologetic positions, caused the interest in the new discipline of “religious studies” {zongjiaoxue) in a narrower sense. Moreover, it was the framework of the discourse on modernization that led to the broad reception of theories and concepts. Much as in the West, discourses on the role of religion included therefore anti-religious as well as affirmative attitudes, and this confirms one of our main theses, which was to show that the reception of religious studies and therefore its emergence as a discipline happened mainly through the discursive interaction of the two new intellec tual milieus or communities of discourse: that of intellectual Chinese, mainly Protestant, Christians and of the more critical and secular-oriented New Culture Movement which developed in this time period. Their affirmative or critical motivations and subsequent exchange of arguments mainly led to the general interest in the new field. In this way, various arguments known from the debates on religion in the West were transplanted to China and applied in local intellectual debates. In summary, religious studies as a field was trans ferred to China not just “mechanically” as part of the package with all other modern sciences and disciplines from the West, nor only “in translation.” Instead, its earliest advocates provided new theories and modern taxonomies to deal with China's own traditions, as well as other new non-Chinese religious traditions, particularly Christianity, and provided ways to reevaluate them in the light of its value or hindrance for modernizing China and her society.

51 Zhou was also a supporter of freedom of religious belief in the 1922 debates (Zhang Qinshi 1927:199). Another prominent example, Lou Zikuang 婁子匡，who was a friend of Zhou and similar to him, was also strongly influenced by the advanced Japanese ethnological research. Later, Lou moved to Taiwan, while Zhou remained on the mainland.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES”

Conclusion

In conclusion, I suggest that we can speak of an emerging discipline of reli gious studies in the time between the mid-i92os and late 1940s. This becomes clearest by the presence of the keyword "religious studies" {zongjiaoxue) as subject (and title) of quite a number of publications, as well as some intro ductory works, which made the outlines of the received Western field visible and its contents accessible to a wider intellectual public. This is also reflected institutionally in various courses about the history of religion, comparative religion, psychology of religion, etc. However, there were also limitations. They can be identified on two distin guishable levels:

1)There were only a few positions or departments, especially the Religion Departments of Yenching and Lingnan Universities (and to a lesser degree in the 1930s at Cheeloo University), which were dedicated to the general field of academic research in religion, related to the Western discipline of religious studies, and different from theology, or philosophy of religion, Buddhology, history, or ethnology (or anthropology), etc. In addition, only a small number of researchers mainly or exclusively pursued questions of what was introduced from the West at this time as religious studies. The lack of departments was at least partly due to the impossibility of official registration and acknowledgment of depart ments of religious studies. Even more obviously, there was no strong public interest or need for special experts in the field.52 And even those Christian schools with a wider religious studies curriculum at that time had later to apply a strategy of implementing courses in religion as only elective and within other departments, such as philosophy and literature. Moreover, there were no real academic conferences or periodicals exclusively dedicated to religious studies, like the Japanese Shûkyô kenkyût or the periodicals and conferences in the West, which served as stable platforms or forums for academic exchange and debate. Contribu tions had to be published in general academic periodicals or series, or as publications of other disciplines.

As a general problem of the discipline — different from graduates of theological semi naries, but also of “essential” subjects like history or languages — graduates from a non theological school would have hardly found any appropriate jobs.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 68 MEYER

All this reflects a stage in which a discipline is still in the process of evolving from an academic border field into a newly institutionalized dis cipline different from other, more established ones. 2) There was not only a lack of independent academic forums, but also a strong public, and more subjective, interest in the topic of religion, which prevented the development of a purely academic appearance of the field. Aside from the already mentioned historical works on religions, scholarly authors from very different interests, backgrounds, and motivations became interested in the ideas and theories of religious studies. However, as efforts were addressed to a wider public, or for other fields, it is often difficult to judge contributions as clearly academic or not. This also led to a substantial lack of coherence in academic discussion.

Altogether, the Republican Chinese interdisciplinary field of research on reli gion, as well as the formation of a discipline, was still evolving and emanci pating from general, societal discourses, which simultaneously constituted a major motivation and promoting factor of academic interest. Chinese scholars of that time — actually not too different from their Western counterparts, or even to some degree today — imported their personal interest and motiva tions as participants in the religious field. However, different from earlier tradi tional Chinese arguments, not only did a new discursive keyword and concept (zongjiao) emerge, but as a result of global flows of ideas, also new standards of scholarly work, theories, methods, arguments, and forms of discourse, as well as a more universal understanding of “religion” as a historically global phe nomenon, had entered the Chinese scene. Intellectuals were urged to take up the role of distant observers and communicate on a seemingly more "objec tive" academic level in order to defend their respective positions and attempt to convince their discursive counterparts. So even if the field of research on religion was not absolutely detached and had not clearly become autonomous from societal debate, a discernible academic field of research on religion, defined by new keywords and rules of argument, had entered the stage and changed religion-related discourses. After the civil war (1945-1949), as a result of the death and dispersal of scholars, but also as a result of political and ideological dominance in academ ics, especially under Communist rule, the field of religious studies declined and only began to flourish once again in the 1980s and 1990s under very differ ent conditions in Taiwan and Hong Kong, as well as in Mainland China.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES" 69

References

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Ai Xiangde 艾香德[Reichelt, Karl Ludvig]. 1925. Zongjiao gailun 宗教概論[A Short Study of the Essence of Religion]. Huang Jingren 寅景仁(trans.). Nanjing: Jingfengshanjidu conglin 景風山基督叢林. Ajima Takeshi 安島健.1923. Shûkyô no wa 宗教の話.Tokyo: Sekai Shichô kenlg^ùkai. .1925. Zongjiao wenda 宗敎問答[Questions and Answers about Religion], Gan Haoze 甘浩澤(trans, and comm.). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan. Akamatsu Chijô 赤松智城.1916-1917. uSaikin no Shûkyô shinrigaku to Shûlyô shakaigaku最近の宗教心理學と宗教社會學•” Shûkyô kenkyù宗教研究i:i -42. Archives of the United Board tor Christian Higher Education in Asia (ubchea). 1882 1974. Series iv. China Colleges Files. Box 181, folder 3246-3251 (Lingnan University, Catalogs, bulletins 1899-1946) and box 308, folder 4744-4747 (Yenching University, "Course announcements"). Yale Divinity School Library Special Collections, Yale University. Barrows, John Henry. 1893. The World's Parliament of Religions: An Illustrated and Popular Story of the World's First Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in Connection with the Columbian Exposition of 1893. Chicago: Parliament Publishing Company. Benavides, Gustavo. 2006. "Study of Religion: The Academic Study of Religion in Western Europe." Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed” New York: Macmillan, 10076-10082.

Berner, Ulrich. 2007. "Aufklârung als Ursprung und Aufgabe der Religionswissenschaft." In Anne Koch (ed.), Watchtawer Religionswissenschaft 一 Standortbestimmungen im wissenschaftlichen Feld, Marburg: dialog-Verlag, 161-180. Brunner, Otto, Werner Conze, and Reinhart Koselleck (eds.). 1972-1997. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. 8 vols. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Cai Yuanpei. 1917. "Yi meiyu dai zongjiao shuo 以美育代宗教說” [Replacing Religion with Aesthetic Education]. Aïn Qingnian 3(6):i—5. .1927.uBeijing feizongjiao dahuiyanjiang zhiyi 北京非宗教大會言講之一.” In Zhang Qinshi 張欽士 [Neander C.S. Chang] (éd.), Guonei jinshi nianlai zhi zongjiao sichao 國内近十年來之宗教思潮[Religious Thought Movements in China During the Last Decade. A Source Book], Peking: Commercial Press, 199-201. Chen Hsi-yuan [Chen Xiyuan]陳熙遠.1999. "Confucianism Encounters Religion: The Formation of Religious Discourse and the Confucian Movement in Modern China, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 70 MEYER

• 2002. uZongjiao — yige Zkongguo jindai wenhuashi shang de guanjianci 宗教一一個中國近代文化史上的關鍵詞.”伽stori/e新史學13(4):37-65. Chen Weiqiang 陳偉強[Chan, Wai-Keung], 2002. Jidujiao vu Zhongguo zongjiao ズMDis/zawyawル基督敎與中國宗敎相遇:許地山研究” [Christianity meets the Chinese Religions: A Case Study of Xu Dishan]. Ph.D. dissertation. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chen Yuan 陳垣.1955. Zhongguofojlao shijigailun 中國佛教史籍概論,Peking: Kexue chubanshe.

.1993. Yuanyelikewen kao wai qi zhong 元也里可温考外七種(Chert Yuarryan xiansheng quanji 陳援庵先生全集 vol.3). Taipei: Xinwenfeng. Conze, Werner, Hans-Woltgang Stràtz, and Hermann Zabel. 1984. “Sâkularisation, Sakularisierung." Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland，vol.5,789-829. Daofeng qikan. 1934.道風期刊[Tao-Fong Magazine. Organ of the Christian Brother hood among the Religious Devotees in East Asia]. 1(1). Dierse, Ulrich, Carl Heinz Ratschow, Stephan Lorenz, Ernst Feil, Walter Jaeschke, Heinrich M. Schmidinger, and Christoph Elsas. 1992. “Religion.” Historisches Worterbuch der Philosophie, vol.8,632-713. Edkins, Joseph [Ai Yuese 艾約瑟].1898. Xixue liieshu 西學略述.Shanghai: Tushu jichengyin shuju. Edwards, Dwight W.1959. Yenching University. New York: United Board for Christian Higner Education in Asia. Elman, Benjamin A. 2000. A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. .2006. A Cultural History of Modern Science in China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Fei zongjiao lun 非宗教論.1922. Fei zongjiao datongmeng 非宗教大同盟（éd.). Peking: Fei zongjiao datongmeng. Feil, Ernst. 1986-2007. Religio. 4 vols. Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck 8c Ruprecht. Fujiwara, Satoko. 2006. "Study of Religion: The Academic Study of ." Encyclopedia of Religion, 2nd ed., New York: Macmillan, 8775-8780. Fung Kam-Wing〉馬錦榮（20i0). “Xu Dishan (1893-1941)yu shijie zongjiaoshiyanjiu-yi Xu shi jiucangshu zhong monijiao yanjiu wenxian zhongxin (1893-1941) 與世界宗教史研究ー以許氏舊藏書中有關摩尼教研究文獻為中心” [Hsu Ti-Shan (1893-1941) and Studies on the History of World Religions: With Special Reference to the Manichaean Corpora in Hsu's Private Collection]. Higashi Ajia Bunka Kosho Kenkyu東アジア文化交渉研究3:8i-ioo. Grant, George Monro. 1910. Sijiao kaoliie 四敎考略[Comparative religion]. Donald MacGillivray [Ji Lifei 季理斐](trans.). Shanghai: Guangxuehui. Originally published as The Religions of the World in Relation to Christianity, Toronto: F.H. Revell, 1894.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES”

He Guanghu, Chung Chin-hong, and Lee Chang-yick. 2008. "Continental East Asia." In Gregory D. Ailes (éd.), Religious Studies: A Global View, London and New York: Routledge, 159-190. Hodous, Lewis. 1930. “The Anti-Christian Movement in China." The Journal of Religion 10(4)487-494. Hung, William [Hong Ye 洪業].1924. “The Aim, Content and Method of a College Course on Religion." Educational Review i7(3):268-28i. International Association for the History of Religions [iahr]. 2013. “Past Congresses." URL： http://www.iahr.dk/pastcon.php (accessed 9 September 2014). Inglis, James W. [Yingyage 英雅各].1937. Zonqjiao bijiaoxue 宗敎比較學[Compa rative religion]. Han Rulin 韓汝霧(trans.). Shanghai: Guangxuehui. Jastrow, Morris, Jr. 1900. “The First International Congress for the History of Religions." InternationalJournal of Ethics 10(4) 1503—509. Jevons, Frank Byron [Zefengzi 澤豐兹].1925. Bijiao zongjiaoxue 比較宗教學.Yan Jicheng 嚴既澄(trans.). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan. Originally published as Comparative Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913). Jian Youwen 簡又文（ed. and trans.). 1922. Zongjiaoyu kexue 宗敎與科學[Religion and Science]. (Zongjiao yanjiu congshu 宗敎研究叢書,2). Shanghai: Zhonghua jidujiao qingnianhui quanguo xiehui shubaobu 中華基督敎靑年會全國協會書 報部. (éd.). 1923. Xin zongjiaoguan 新宗教觀[The New Point of View]. 2nd ed. Shanghai: Zhongguo jidujiao qingnianhui quanguo xiehui 中國基督敎靑年會全 國協會[National Committee of the ymca of China]. Jian Youwen 簡又文,Fan Zimei 范子美,Yang Yihui 楊益惠,Ying Yuandao 應元道, and Guo Shijian 郭志堅.1922. uDuiyu Fei zongjiao yundong xuanyan 對於非宗教運動宣言.” In Zhang Qinshi 張欽士 [Neander C.S. Chang] (ed.), Guonei jinshi nianlai zhi zongjiao sichao 國内近十年來之宗教思潮[Religious Thought Movements in China During the Last Decade. A Source Book], Peking： Commercial Press, 207-212. Jiang Shaoyuan 江紹原.1919. Shuomingyanjiu zongjiaoxue zhijinyao 說明研究宗教 學之緊要.Beijing daxueyuekan北京大學月刊i(2):5i-66. Josephson, Jason Ananda. 2012. Tne Invention oj Reugion in Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Katô Genchi 加藤玄智.1933. Shijie zongjiaoshi 世界宗敎史• Tie Zheng 鐵錚(trans.). Shanghai: Shangwu. Kellogg, Samuel Henry. 1919. Zhujiao cankao 諸教參考[(A) Handbook of Comparative Religion]. 4th ed. Watson M. Hayes [Heshi 赫士] under collaboration of Yu Hanqing 于漢清 and Li Xinmin 李新民（trans.). Ji'nan: Qi-Lu daxue yinshua shiwusuo. Originally published as [A] Handbook of Comparative Religion, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1899.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms MEYER

Kippenberg, Hans. 2001. Discovering Religious History in the Modern Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kuhlmann, Dirk. 2014. “Negotiating Cultural and Religious Identities in the Encounter with the 'Other': Global and Local Perspectives in the Historiography of Late Qing/ Early Republican Christian Missions.” In Thomas Jansen, Thoralf Klein, and Christian Meyer (ed.), Globalization and the Making of Religious Modernity in China: Transnational Religions, Local Agents, and the Study ofReligion, 1800 -Present, Boston and Leiden: Brill, 342-378. Lackner, Michael,Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz (eds.). 2001. New Terms for New Ideas: Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Lackner, Michael, and Natascha Vittinghoff. 2004. Mapping Meanings: The Field of New Learning in Late Qing China. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Lam, Jason Tsz-Shun. 2004. “The Emergence of Scholars Studying Christianity in Mainland China." Religion, State & Society 32:177-186. Legge, James. 1879. The Sacred Books of China, The Texts of Confucianism, Part 1:The Shu king, The Religious Portions of the Shih king, TheHsiâo king. (The Sacred Books of the East, 3). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Liang Qichao 梁啟超.2006 [1902] • "Baojiaofeisuoyizun Kong lun 保教ヲド所以尊孔論.” In Liang Qichao xuanji 梁啟超選集.Beijing: Wenlian chubanshe, 76-86. Lin Buji 林步基.1926. Zhujiao cankao 諸教參考• Shanghai: Zhonghua shenggonghui. Liu Xian 劉賢.2005. Chen Yuan zhi zonqjiaoyanjiu 陳垣之宗教研究[On Chen Yuan's study of religions]. Ph.D. dissertation. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Liu Xian 刘贤.2006. “Chen Yuan jidujiao xirtyang kao 陈垣基督教信仰考•” Shixue yuekan 10:83-91. Lôwenthal, Rudolf. 1940. The Religious Periodical Press in Cnina. Peking: The Synodal Commission in China. Menzies, Allan [Aran Menjïsu アランメンジース].1901 [1895]- Sekai Shukyôshi 世界宗敎史[Historv of Religion. A Sketch of Primitive Religious Beliefs and Practices, and the Origin and Character of the Great Systems]. Katô Genchi 加藤玄智(trans.). Tokyo: Hakubunkan 博文館. Meyer, Christian. 2008-2009. "Xie Fuya as a Contributor to Religious Studies in China in the First Half of the 20th Century." ChingFeng 9(i-2):23-50. .2009. “ 'Religion' and 'Superstition' in Introductory Works to Religious Studies in Early Republican China.” Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung 33:103—125. .2014. “How the 'Science of Religion' {zongjiaoxué) as a Discipline Globalized 'Religion' in Late Qing and Early Republican China, 1890-1949: Global Concepts, Knowledge Transfer, and Local Discourses.” In Thomas Jansen, Thoralf Klein, and Christian Meyer (eds.), Globalization and the Making of Religious Modernity in

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF “RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 73

China: Transnational Religions, Local Agents, and the Stucfy of Religion, 1800 -Present, Boston and Leiden: Brill, 297-340. .Forthcoming. “Die chinesische 'Entdeckung' der Religionsgeschichte. Studien zur Rezeption westlicher Religionswissenschaft in China 1890-1949.” Habili tationsschrift, Erlangen and Nuremberg: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Ng, Tze Ming Peter [Wu Ziming 吳梓明].1999a. "Secularisation or Modernisation: Teaching Christianity in China since the 1920s" Studies in World Christianity 5:1-17. •1999b. “From Theological Education to Religious Studies. An Enquiry into the Development of Religious Education atYenching University” [Cong shenxue jiaayu dao zongjiaoyanjiu從神學教育到宗教研究一燕京大學宗教教育的考察]. Journal of the History of Christianitv in Modern China 2:49-66. Nongbri, Brent 2013. Before Religion. A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Posner, Roland. 1989. "What is an Academic Discipline?” In Regina Clausen and Roland Daube-Scharat (ed.), Gedankenzeichen Festschrift fur Klaus Oehler, Tubingen: Stauffenburg, 165-185. Pott, F.L. Hawks. 1892. “How to Increase the Efficiency of our Native Workers." The Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal 23:299-304. Reichelt, Karl Ludvig. 1927. Truth and Tradition in Chinese Buddhism: A Stucfy of Chinese Buddhism. Shanghai: Commercial Press. Originally published as Fra Ostens Religiose Ltv: Et indiblik i den kinesiske Mahayana-Buddhisme, Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gads Forlag, 1922. Schipper, Kristofer. 2002. "Rediscovering Religion in China.” In Gerard Albert Wiegers and Jan Platvoet (eds.), Modern Societies & the Science of Religions. Studies in Honour of Lammert Leertouwer, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 377-386. Sharpe, Eric J. 1984. Karl Luctvig Reichelt: Missionary, Scholar and Pilgrim. Hong Kong: Tao Fong Shan Ecumenical Centre. Shepard, Robert S.1988. “The Science of Religion in American Universities 1880-1930: A Comparison of Six Institutions." Chicago: University of Chicago. .1991. God's People in the Ivory Tower: Religion in the Early American University. New York: Carlson Publishing, Inc. Shi Datong 釋大同.1947. Zongjiaoxue. Shanghai: Zhongguo zongjiaotu heping jianguo datongmeng. Smith, Jonathan Z.1998. "Religion, Religions, Religious." In Mark C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 269-284. Stausberg, Michael. 2008. "Western Europe." In Gregory D. Ailes (éd.), Religious Studies: A Global View, London: Routledge,14一49. Sun, Anna Xiao Dong. 2008. "Confusions over Confucianism: Controversies over the Religious Nature of Confucianism, 1870-2007: Ph.D. dissertation. Princeton: Princeton University.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms MEYER

Suzuki, Norihisa. 1970. “Nobuta Kishimoto and the Beginnings of the Scientific Study of Religion in Modern Japan." Contemporary Religions in Japan 11(3 - 4)(155 -180. Taves, Ann. 2009. Reconsidered A Building-Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Uchiyama Shônyô 内山正如.1940. Wanguo zongjiao zhi 万国宗教志[Report on the Religions of all Countriesl.Luo Dawei 羅大維（trans.). Shanghai: Jingjin shuju 镜今书局.Originally published as Bankoku Shûkyô tail萬國宗教大意，Tokyo: Hakubunkan 博文館,1891. Uno Enku 宇野圓空.1916-1917. uShûkyôgaku to Shûkyô tetsugaku 宗教學と宗教哲 學.” Shûkyô kenkyu 宗教研究1:573-593. Veit-Brause, Irmline. 2003. “The Interdisciplinarity of Historv of Concepts — A Bridge between Disciplines.” History of Concepts Newsletter 6:8-13. url: http://de.scribd .com/doc/n849570i/History-of-Concepts-Newsletter-6 (accessed 9 September 2014). Wangjingwei 汪精衛.1922. uFei zongjiao datongmeng 非宗教大同盟.” la Fei zongjiao datongmeng 非宗教大同盟(éd.), Feizongjiao lun 非宗教論.Peking: Fei zongjiao datongmeng. .1922. "Shehui jiaoyu ying zhuyi de wenti 社會教育應注意的問題.” In Fei zongjiao datongmeng 非宗教大同盟(éd.), Fei zongjiao lun.非宗教論.Peking: Fei zongjiao datongmeng. Wang Zhixin 王治心(éd.), and Ai Xiangde 艾香德[Reichelt, Karl Ludvig] (emend.). 1924. Jidutu zhi foxueyanjiu 基督徒之佛學研究[Christian Study of Buddhism]. Shanghai: Shanghai guangxuehui. Wang Zhixin 王治心.1926. Zhongguo lishi de shangdiguan 中國歷史的上帝觀[The Idea of God in Chinese History]. Shanghai: Zhonghua jidujiao wenshe. .1933. Zhongguo zongjiao sixiang shi dagang 中國宗教思想史大綱[An Outline of the History of Religious Thought in Cmna]. Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju. Wesolowski, Zbigniew. 1997. Lebens- und Kulturbegriff von Liang Shu-ming (1893-1988). Dargestellt anhand seines Werkes Dong-Xi wenhua ji qi zhexue. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica.

Whitley, Richard. 1984. “The Rise and Decline of University Disciplines.” In Ray Jurkowich and Jean H. Paelinck (ed.), Problems of Interdisciplinary Studies, Aldershot: Gower, 10-25. Wilson, Brian C. 2004. Review of John P. Burris, Exhibiting Religion: Colonialism and Spectacle at International Expositions, 1851-1893" Journal of the American Academy of Religion 72(3)762-765. Xie Fuya 謝扶雅.1939 [1928]. Zongjiao zhexue 宗教哲學[Philosophy of Religion]. 2nd ed. Shanghai: Qingnian xiehui [Association Press]. Xie Songgao 謝頌盖.1928. Zongjiaoxue abc 宗教學 abc. Shanghai: Shijie shuju. ,and Yu Muren 余牧人（eds.). 1926. Zhujiao deyanjiu 諸教的研究[Studies about religions], Shanghai: Guangxuehui.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms THE EMERGENCE OF "RELIGIOUS STUDIES” 75

Xu Dishan 許地山.1941. Fuji mixin diyanjiu 扶箕迷信底研究.Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan商務印書館. Xu Zongze 徐宗澤•1939- Zongjiaoyanjiu gailun 宗教研究概論.Shanghai: Shengjiao zazhishe聖教雜誌社. Xuxin 虛心.1935. Zongjiao tonglun 宗教通論.Hankou: Weilun yinshuguan. Yan Jicheng 嚴既澄.1923. uBijiao zongjiaoxue gailun 比較宗教學概論.” Minduo zazhi 民鐸雜誌4⑷:i -9. Yeh, Wen-hsin. 1990. The Alienated Academy: Culture and Politics in Republican China, 1919-1937. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Zhang Qinshi 張欽士 [Neander C.S. Chang] (ed.). 1927. Guonei jinshi nianlai zhi zongjiao sichao 國内近十年來之宗教思潮[Religious Thought Movements in China During the Last Decade. A Source Book]. Peking: Commercial Press. Zhou Yutong 周予同.1996. Jingxue shi lunzhu xuanji 經學史論著選集.2nd ed. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe. Zhou Zuoren 周作人 2002 [1919]. "Zuxian chongbai 祖先崇拜•" In Lun huji 談虎集, Shijiazhuang: Hebeijiaoyu chubanshe, 4-6. .2002 [1925]. "Samanjiao de lijiao sixiang 萨满教的礼教思想.” In Lun hu ji 談虎集,Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 219-221. .2002 [1937]. uTan Guangong 談關公.” In Bingzhu houtan 秉燭後談. Shijiazhuang: Hebeijiaoyu chubanshe, 406-410. • 2002 [1943〗. "Guanyu jishen yinghui 關於祭神迎會.” In Yaotang zawen 藥堂雜文.Shijiazhuang: Hebeijiaoyu chubanshe, 250-256.

NUMEN 62 (2015) 40-75

This content downloaded from 86.59.13.237 on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:57:55 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms