¹ Starr, Kenneth, “Cultural Problems on Nationalist Taiwan” France-Asie/Asia, Vol. XVIII (September–December 1962), passim.Google Scholar

² Chiang's growing concern over the Cultural Revolution may be traced in the rhetoric of his public speeches during the summer and autumn of 1966. See President Chiang Kai-shek's Selected Speeches and Messages in 1966 (Taipei, 1967) (cited hereafter as Chiang's Speeches for 1966). Also in addressing student military trainees on 25 August, 1966, Chiang announced: “A protect-Chinese-culture movement is being undertaken to support the intellectuals now facing persecution in the Red's so-called cultural revolution.” The Kuomintang would sponsor the movement, he said (“Culture, Science and Education,” Free China Review (FCR), Vol. XVI (October 1966), p. 83).

³ Chung-shan is Sun Yat-sen's courtesy appellation. The building is located on Yang-ming-shan in suburban Taipei.Google Scholar

⁴ It was Sun's 100th birthday by western reckoning.Google Scholar

⁵ Chiang's Speeches for 1966, p. 102. See also “Symbol of Chinese Cultural Revival,” FCR, Vol. XVI (December 1966), pp. 19–22.

⁶ Free China Weekly (FCW), 20 November 1966. According to the FCW's version, Wang Yun-wu, a Senior Advisor to the President, made the proposal. All other official sources give the version below.Google Scholar

⁷ Sun K'o is Sun Yat-sen's son and President of the Examination Yuan.Google Scholar

⁸ K'ung is the 77th lineal descendant of Confucius. Others listed as originators of the petition were Chang Chih-pen and Ch'en Ta-ch'i, Senior Advisors to the President, and Paul Yu-p'in, Archbishop of Nanking and President of Fujen Catholic University.Google Scholar

⁹ The tao t'ung, variously defined as the orthodox succession of the torch-bearers of the truth, or the tradition of the sages, was supposedly handed down from the Emperors Yao, Shun, Yü, T'ang, Wen, and Wu, the Duke of Chou, Confucius and Mencius. Chiang has included Sun Yat-sen in the tao t'ung, and Chiang's followers have added his name to the list. See Wang Meng-yuan, Chung-hua wen-hua fu-hsing yun-tung chiang tsai (Chinese Cultural Renaissance Movement Basic Materials) (Taipei, 1967), p. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid. p. 3; Chung-yang jih-pao (Central Daily News) (CDN), 13 November 1966.

¹¹ Ibid.; Chiang's Speeches for 1966, p. 98.

¹² Ibid. p. 101.

¹³ Ibid. pp. 101–102, 104

¹⁴ 13 November 1966.

¹⁵ Lin Yu-t'ang is probably best known for his writings which explain China to the West.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Tseng Yueh-nung is the grandson of Tseng Kuo-fan and an adviser to the President.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ch'ien Mu is a conservative historian and the former President of New Asia College in Hong Kong. He now lives on Taiwan. See also Chung-hua wen-hua fu-hsing lun-chi (Essays on the Cultural Renaissance Movement) (Taipei, 1967). This book contains many reprints of articles supporting the Cultural Renaissance, as well as interviews with supporters of the movement, and newspaper editorials.Google Scholar

¹⁸ “Culture, Science and Education,” FCR, Vol. XVII (January 1967), p. 78.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Wang (see note 9).Google Scholar

²⁰ Taiwan interview, section 1, 24 July 1968. The names of some of those interviewed have been kept confidential. The notes, however, are available to any scholar wishing to verify these statements for scholarly purposes.Google Scholar

²¹ FCW, 30 July 1967Google Scholar; CDN, 29 July 1967. The latter source implies that the meeting was spontaneously organized by the participants, who also took the initiative in forming the Council. The FCW, however, names Dr. Milton Hsieh (Hsieh Jan-chih), Deputy Secretary General of the Kuomintang, as the director of the preparation committee for convening the meeting.Google Scholar

²² “Culture, Science and Education,” FCR, Vol. XVII (September 1967), pp. 87–88;Google Scholar“Regulations governing implementation of the Chinese cultural renaissance movement,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (February 1968), p. 79.Google Scholar

²³ CDN, 29 July 1967, 30 July 1967.Google ScholarChiang named Sun K'o, Wang Yun-wu and Ch'en Li-fu as the Vice-Presidents of the Council. Section III of the Constitution clearly reveals that the Council was Chiang's tool, for he was given the sole power to appoint officials and members of the body (“Regulations governing implementation of the Chinese cultural renaissance movement,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (February 1968), p. 79).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. pp. 28–80; (March 1968), pp. 72–76.

²⁵ Ibid. (February 1968), pp. 78–79.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Ibid. p. 78.

²⁸ Ibid. The four Social Controls and Eight Virtues refer to propriety, rectitude, honesty and sense of shame, and to loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, faithfulness, justice, harmony and peace, respectively.

²⁹ The Chinese Youth Corps was founded on 31 October 1952 as a supplementary branch of the government's educational structure. According to the China Yearbook, “It is a youth organization dedicated to the task of helping young people in their intellectual development and mobilizing and training them for national recovery and reconstruction.” Chang, Tsun-chuanet al. (eds.), China Yearbook 1965–66 (Taipei, 1966), p. 476). In practice, the organization is used by the Kuomintang to control the youth of Taiwan.Google Scholar

³⁰ No published information has been found on this committee, but according to private information available to the author, it controls young intellectuals through subsidization of members and by surveillance of non-members.Google Scholar

³¹ “Regulations governing implementation of the Chinese Cultural Renaissance,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (March 1968), p. 73.Google Scholar

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid. pp. 73–76.

³⁴ CDN, 11 October 1967;Google Scholar“Culture, Science and Education,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (December 1967), p. 68.Google Scholar

³⁵ Based upon statements made to the author during a visit to the Cultural Bureau on 5 July 1968.Google Scholar

³⁶ Taiwan interview, section 2, 21 August 1968. A list of the banned and censored movies was in plain sight at the Cultural Bureau. See also The China Post, 16 August 1968, which relates how Playboy was banned by the Cultural Bureau.

³⁷ Taiwan interview, section 2. See also the “Regulations governing implementation of the Chinese Cultural Renaissance,” which calls for the rewriting of the operas (FCR, Vol. XVIII (March 1968), p. 74).Google Scholar

³⁸ The term is used here in its broadest sense, that is, to refer to the intellectual and cultural revolution that occurred in China between approximately 1915 and 1922. For the most comprehensive work on the subject see Chow Tse-tung, The May Fourth Movement (Cambridge, Mass., 1960).Google ScholarSee also Theodore, Wm.Bary, Deet al., Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. II (New York, 1964), pp. 151–195.Google Scholar

³⁹ Hu Shih is probably the best known of the modern Chinese intellectuals. His efforts to promote the use of pai-hua (the vernacular) sparked the literary and cultural movement of the 1920s. Hu has been and remains, even after his death, an anathema to the Chinese traditionalists. See Boorman, Howard L. and Howard, Richard C. (eds.), Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, Vol. II (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), pp. 167–174.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. p. 170.

⁴¹ Originally a Buddhist scholar, Liang was converted to Confucianism. He believed that world civilization could be reconstructed on Chinese civilization and condemned the westernizers. He opposed both the Kuomintang and the Communists. For a recent account of Liang's views, see Wen-shun Chi “Liang Shu-ming and Chinese Communism”, The China Quarterly No. 41 (January–March, 1970).Google Scholar

⁴² European intellectuals, like Euken, Bergson and many others, believed that World War I was a manifestation of the bankruptcy of western civilization; therefore they looked to the East for wisdom to correct western shortcomings (Chow, The May Fourth Movement, p. 328).Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. pp. 328–329.

⁴⁴ Chang Chun-mai was a leading supporter of Liang Ch'i-ch'ao's ideas and movements. He has worked for the establishment of constitutional government in China since the early 1900s. See Boorman and Howard (eds.), Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, Vol. I, pp. 30–35. Chang started the debate on “science and metaphysics” when he insisted upon the need for metaphysics as the basis for a genuine philosophy of life. He was opposed by a large number of writers, including Hu Shih, who attacked metaphysics and defended science. In the end the latter group, as far as majority opinion was concerned, won (Bary, Deet al., Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. II, pp. 172–173).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ A leading adviser to Chiang, T'ao is said to have ghost-written Soviet Russia in China for the Generalissimo.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Shih, Huet al., Hu Shih yü Chung hsi wen-hua (Hu Shih and the Chinese and Western Cultures) (Taipei, 1967), pp. 127–131.Google ScholarSee also Bary, Deet al., Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. II, pp. 192–194.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. pp. 194–195.

⁴⁸ See Boorman and, Howard (eds.), Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, Vol. I, pp. 206–211.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Chen, Li-fu, Philosophy of Life (New York, 1948), pp. 115–116.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ S. J., J. A. Lefeuvre, “Confucian and Scientific Humanisms in Modern China,” Journal of the China Society, Vol. V (1967), p. 63.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Ibid. p. 68.

⁵³ FCR, Vol. XV (March 1962), pp. 39–41.Google ScholarSee also Shih, Huet al., Hu Shih and Chinese and Western Cultures, pp. 261–266.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ao, Li, Wen-hua lun-chan tan-huo-lu (A Survey of the Controversies on Culture) (Taipei, 1965), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Mei, Wen-li, “The Intellectuals on Formosa,” The China Quarterly, No. 15 (July–September 1963), p. 72.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ S. J., John Deeney and S. J., Jean Lefeuvre, Arts, Literature, Philosophy in Taiwan (Hsinchu, 1968), p. 26;Google ScholarMelvin, Gurtov, “Recent Developments on Formosa,” The China Quarterly No. 31 (July–September 1967), pp. 85–86.Google Scholar According to Gurtov, the journal's defence of freedom of speech was also a factor in its suspension (ibid. p. 86).

⁵⁷ Chiang, Kai-shek, China's Destiny and Chinese Economic Theory, translated with commentary by Philip Jaffe (New York: Roy Publishers, 1947), pp. 98 and 203 (cited hereafter as China's Destiny).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Shen, Chang-huan wrote of the May Fourth Movement in 1954: “Despite its achievements in various fields, the Movement did more than breaking [sic] up classical icons. It upset the traditional scale of ethical values in China without postulating anything to take its place. To ascribe all evils to the influence of Confucianism was the intellectual fad of the time and to absorb without choice Western ideas of every brand was the theme of the movement. Consequently, all dangerous doctrines rushed in to vitiate the moral strength of society, adding more confusion to the confounded intellectual atmosphere” (“The Kuomintang Completes a Cycle,”Google ScholarFCR, Vol. IX (August 1954, p. 28)).Google ScholarIn 1965 K'u, Y. C. blamed the Japanese and western trained Chinese scholars who had demanded the liquidation of the Confucian heritage for most of China's subsequent ills ((Koo), “Western Science and Chinese Humanism,” Chinese Culture, Vol. VI (October 1965), p. 92).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Boorman and, Howard (eds.), Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, Vol. I, pp. 319–338.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Bary, Deet al., Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. II, pp. 136–137.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Chiang, Kai-shek, “Some Reflections on My Fiftieth Birthday,” contained in Hsiung Shih-i, The Life of Chiang Kai-shek (London, 1948), p. 374.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid. p. 376.

⁶³ Clarence Burton Day, The Philosophers of China (New York, 1962), p. 219.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Briere, O., Fifty Years of Chinese Philosophy, 1898–1950, trans.Google ScholarThompson, L. G. (London, 1956), p. 59.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Wright, Mary C., “From Revolution to Restoration: The Transformation of Kuomintang Ideology,” Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. XIV (August 1955), p. 517.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Chu, Samuel C., “The New Life Movement, 1934–1937,” unpublished manuscript, Columbia University, 1957, p. 106;Google ScholarLoh, Pichon Y., “The Politics of Chiang Kai-shek: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. XXV (May 1966), p. 443.Google ScholarLoh calls, Chiang a “reform traditionalist” and believes that his “notion of a modernized China on a Confucian Foundation,” as expressed in the New Life Movement, could have become a useful bridge between the traditionalists and the westernizers.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Chu, “The New Life Movement,” p. 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid. pp. 11–12.

⁶⁹ Ibid. p. 34. The ideas of frugality and simplicity, as well as the stress on social work, in the New Life Movement were of Christian rather than Confucian origin.

⁷⁰ Ibid. p. 25.

⁷¹ China's Destiny, pp. 167–172.Google Scholar

⁷² Chow, The May Fourth Movement, pp. 344–345.Google Scholar

⁷³ Chiang, Kai-shek, “Reorganization of the Cultural Heritage and Improvement of the National Character,” China Weekly, 16 June 1952.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See Kenneth, Starr, “Cultural Problems on Nationalist Taiwan,” France-Asie/Asia, Vol. XVIII, passim.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Yeh, George K. C., “Address,” Chinese Culture, Vol. II (March 1959), p. 179.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Chiang, Kai-shek, “Report to the National Assembly,” FCR, Vol. X (March 1960), p. 71.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ “Chronology” FCR, Vol. X (May 1960), p. 65.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Chiang's Speeches for 1966, p. 47.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ “Culture, Science and Education,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (August 1968), p. 64.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Interview, section 3, 15 July 1968.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Essays on the Cultural Renaissance Movement, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁸² Deeney and, Lefeuvre, Arts, Literature, Philosophy in Taiwan, p. 25.Google ScholarSee also Lefeuvre, , “Confucian and Scientific Humanisms in Modern China,” Journal of the China Society, Vol. V, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar

⁸³ Deeney and, Lefeuvre, Arts, Literature, Philosophy in Taiwan, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Interview with Lefeuvre, 22 August 1968.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Deeney and, Lefeuvre, Arts, Literature, Philosophy in Taiwan, pp. 26–27.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Mancall (ed.), Formosa Today, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See , Mei, “The Intellectuals on Formosa,” The China Quarterly (July–September 1963), pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Deeney and, Lefeuvre, Arts, Literature, Philosophy in Taiwan, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Ibid. p. 9.

⁹⁰ China's Destiny, p. 210.

⁹¹ Bary, Deet al., Sources of Chinese Tradition, p. 136.Google Scholar

⁹² Chiang, Kai-shek, “Youth Day Message, March 29, 1968,” FCR, Vol. XVIII (May 1968), p. 76.Google Scholar

⁹³ Based upon several interviews.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Starr, “Cultural Problems on Nationalist Taiwan,” France-Asie/Asia, Vol. XVIII, pp. 557–559.Google Scholar