Skip to main content

Banditry in China

Unruly People

I've been reading a book about banditry in China from the late 18th into the mid 19th century (the mid-Qing or late Imperial period, in terms of traditional Chinese periodization).

These are simply among my notes from the reading. Notes that did NOT get into the actual review that I have prepared for publication months hence in The Federal Lawyer.

 "Bandit" is not a legal term in English, it is a vernacular term that derives from the word for "banishment." It is associated with activities that might get their perpetrator banished, and with activities sometimes associated with those who HAVE BEEN banished, and who accordingly can only continue their criminal ways on the margins of a settled society, where there are hiding places or a nearby sanctuary.

The word most often translated into "bandit" from Chinese is "fei," which has a similar etymology.

Also, both "bandit" and "fei" suggest violent theft, as well as membership in a gang.

Another useful Chinese word to know in context is "zei." This suggests 'one who pillages.' It is a broader term than "fei" because the pillaging committed by a zei can be part of a political revolt, as well as or instead of banditry.

The book, UNRULY PEOPLE, is about bandits, but also in parts it is about the boundary where banditry can turn into rebellion, where zei may be a better word than fei.

The area under consideration is south eastern China -- the area along the Pacific from just north of Hong Kong, south to the Vietnam border.

Something else that the Anglophone and Chinese worlds have in common is the romantic view of banditry (as well as of its sea-faring cousin, piracy). English speaking folk think of Robin Hood. Chinese literature has analogs: the bandit as sympathetic nonconformist.

My apologies if this infliction of my first notes seems chaotic. That will be all for now.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…