So far, this record has been confined to an account of the salient facts of the career of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan. No attempt has been made to deal in detail with the military engagements of the T'ai Pings. These can best be left for those concerned with such things. Hung was not a soldier or an administrator and it may be that this accounts, in some measure, for the failure of his regime. Professor Latourette's observation that "had Hung displayed any very great genius for organization or political leadership, the T'ai Pings might well have overthrown the Manchus" is a reasonable historical criticism.
However, the subject of this enquiry is, at stated at the outset, the man himself. Was he just an impostor? Was his profession of Christianity merely a bid for Western support in his campaign to secure the occupancy of the Dragon Throne? Was he a fanatic, who set up a bloodstained and tyrannous order? Or, just another Chinese rebel, determined to gain control at any cost? Did he leave behind him anything worthwhile?
Various answers have been given to these questions and a lot of nonsense added, especially by those writers who, in their attempts to canonize Charles Gordon as a soldier-saint, have set him, in all his greatness, real or imaginary, against a Hung background of despotism and blasphemy. These writers have relied for much of their evidence on the Gordon journals and the falsities of the Peking Gazette or the biased opinions of narrow-minded evangelical missionaries, who could see in the T'ai Ping leader just a hysterical and mentally unbalanced examination-failure, seeking to offset his frustration by wading through bloodshed to a throne. One outstanding instance of this twisted judgment is in D. C. Boulger's History of China, as follows:
"If any secret society shared in the origination of the Taiping rebellion, that credit belongs to the Triads, whose anti-Manchu literature enjoyed a wide circulation throughout Southern China, and they may have had a large share in drafting the program that the Taiping leader, Tien Wang, attempted to carry out. "He seems to have passed all his examinations with special credit, but the prejudice on account of his birth prevented his obtaining any employment in the civil service of his country. He was, therefore, a disappointed aspirant to office, and, at such a period, it was not surprising that he should have become an enemy of the constituted authorities and the government. As he could not be the servant of the state, he set himself the ambitious task of being its master, and, with this object in view, he resorted to religious practices in order to acquire a popular reputation and following among the masses. He took up his residence in a Buddhist monastery; and the ascetic deprivations, the loud prayers and invocations, the supernatural counsels and meetings, were the course of training which every religious devotee adopts as the proper novitiate for those honors, based on the superstitious reverence of mankind, which are sometimes no inadequate substitute for temporal power and influence, even when they fail to pave the way to their attainment".
The sincerity of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan cannot be questioned. His creed may appear repulsive to many and his claims ridiculous, but these are not sufficient grounds for questioning his sincerity. Few historians have doubted Mohammed's sincerity, yet there is a striking similarity between the Arab and the Chinese. Mohammed used to wander alone over the hills, brooding over the contrast between Christianity and Judaism as well as the superstitions of his own people. Hung had spent much of his time with his own thoughts, contrasting what he had heard from missionary Gutzlaff in Canton and convert Liang A-fa with the idolatry of his own village. Mohammed had been pronounced "mad and devil possessed" by his friends and some of Hung's close acquaintances thought him "mad" and had not hesitated to tell him so. Mohammed suffered, in his childhood, from "cataleptic fits" and Hung was "constantly under the influence of cerebral over-excitement". Both had suffered certain frustrations, though from different causes. The voice of Gabriel to Mohammed admonished him to "purify thy garments and shun all abomination" and the Venerable One had urged Hung to "beware lest thou doest the same", referring to "the perverse hearts and depravity", that were then widespread. This warning was given after he had been "purified by washing in the river". Mohammed began his mission in his own household by converting his wife Khadijeh and Hung found his first converts in his parents and brothers. Both claimed to have received a Divine commission. In the one case, this was expressed against an Arabian background, in the other against a synthesis of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism. This latter was not peculiar for had not Fang Yu-lu written T'ai chi han san wei I - "when they reach the extreme, the three are seen to be one?"
The sincerity, indeed the simple sincerity of Hung can be seen, if we compare the elaborate and mystic rites with which a candidate was initiated into the San Ho Hui, Triad Society, with the ceremony that marked the admission of a new member of the God-worshippers. As Hung himself arranged the latter, it is well to note this contrast in some detail.
In the case of the San Ho Hui, the candidate for admission to membership, took no less than 36 oaths while "crossing the bridge" in the "red flower pavilion", which was the name of the innermost part of the lodge. Swords were placed at an angle, forming a kind of arch and under this, the candidate swore "not to divulge these secrets to any person under penalty of death". The Yoh ko, presiding brother, welcomed the candidate, as he emerged from the arch, by cutting off the head of a cock in ratification of the oaths. The initiated new member then stood in the centre of a ring formed by the others and a small red porcelain bowl was passed from one to the other. Each made a small incision in the flat of the thumb of the right hand and the blood dropped into the bowl. The last to receive the bowl was the initiate. He did the same, and then, as the Yih ko whispered the password in his ear, he drank the blood from the bowl. Then followed the procession around the four trees in the room, set in their huge pots, the 松 (pine), 柏 (cypress), 桃 (peach), and 梨 (pear). Then, the newly initiated candidate, standing in the centre of the group, declared himself thus:
"As I entered the bridge of brass and iron, I saw the brethren;
As I crossed the bridge I saw the city of Yang.
Red blossoms adorned the Pavilion of Righteousness;
Before the Hall of Virtue the standard was raised;
Then became I one with the brethren".
To this the assembled members replied:
"The ancestors of our united families now combine;
With sincere hearts they have become one;
This is the Hung brotherhood".
How different was the admission into the congregation of God-worshippers? There was no secrecy and no mystic rites but just the simple confession of faith and pledge of obedience to the rules.
"I praise Shang Ti the Heavenly Father;
I praise Jesus the Heavenly Elder Brother
Whose true doctrine saves the world.
I will abide by the Holy Heavenly Rules".
Later, this was to be enlarged considerably, but at the beginning of the movement, Hung required only this simple confession and promise to keep the Ten Commandments. The very simplicity of this ceremony of admission bears the mark of sincerity, especially when it is remembered that the God-worshippers were, at the outset, despised by the intellectuals, persecuted by the gentry and under constant threat from the officials. The great majority of temple worshippers shunned them for the time had not yet come when the common people were to hear Hung gladly.
Sincerity had always been the canon by which the Chinese judged men and especially their leaders. Confucius had set it down as the sine qua non of the true man. The hallmarks of the 君子were only possible provided there was sincerity, which was to Confucius what love was to the Apostle Paul. Indeed, one is tempted to set down the 13th chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians side by side with the 25th and 26th sections of the Chung Yung. To the Apostle, the gift of tongues and prophecy, the faith that removes mountains, even the bestowal of goods to feed the poor, without the love that suffereth long and is kind, the love that envieth not and seeketh not its own, the love that endureth and hopeth all things, are in vain. Of the three cardinal virtues, faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love. Confucius maintained that sincerity was the greatest: "Sincerity is the beginning and end of things. Without this sincerity, there can be nothing. Sincerity has a permanent character and expresses itself in actions. By expressing itself, it reaches into the future. Thus it strengthens itself. Becoming stronger, it shines forth in splendour. Shining forth in splendour, it makes men perfect. In making men perfect, it fashions them as the equals of Heaven".
It was this sincerity in Hung and his earliest followers that arrested the attention by Western observers in China at the time, even when they disagreed with many of Hung's claims. Among these, four Englishmen may be noted. Dr. D. J. Macgowan of the Ningpo Mission, writing in 1854, described this sincerity thus: "Men from the interior, who had heard Christianity explained at Canton, returned to their homes, bent on the establishment of a new society on a Christian basis, so far as they were able, with their imperfect instruction, to comprehend the nature of our holy faith. Had the members of the Sect of God not been molested, these simple people would never have been found arrayed against their laws and rulers".
In the same year, the Anglican Bishop of Hongkong expressed the view that "The finger of Divine Providence appears to us signally conspicuous in this revolution. Beholding it, we thank God for what our eyes are now privileged to behold". Consular official T. T. Meadows, who had close contact with the followers of Hung, stated in 1861, that "Viewed as a piece of contemporary history, the rise and progress of the Bible-spreading Ti-Ping Christianity is one of the most interesting spectacles that the annals of the human race present. If they succeed, it will prove to be one of the most momentous". Evidently, he believed in the sincerity of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan. A. F. Lindley, who lived for a time at the court of Hung and fought with his armies, wrote in his Ti-Ping Tien-Kwoh (published in London in 1866) that "The Ti-Pings have already achieved an important moral revolution, which is proving to be a national deliverance. The moral regeneration is already visible. Everywhere the Ten Commandments are to be seen on tablets and there is one of these in every home. A torch has been lit in Asia, which marks the dawn of Christianity". Actually, Lindley was writing his manuscript at the time England decided to intervene against the T'ai Pings and on the side of the dissolute Manchus.
Some Western writers have made much of Hung's reply to the desperate appeal of the Chung Wang for reinforcements during the battle at Soochow in 1863. The T'ai Ping leader is recorded in the Peking Gazette as having declared that if he wished, he could call down legions of angels to his assistance. Assuming that this Manchu account is correct, is such a boast to be interpreted as a sign of madness? Could it not have been sincerity amounting to obsession? What if it were simply a Hung application of some things he had read in his New Testament especially in the case of the Heavenly Elder Brother? E. R. Hughes in his The Invasion of China by the Western World maintains that "to the very end the distinctively Christian side to the movement was quite clearly marked" and the authors of Annals and Memoirs of the Court of Peking take the same view. Could it have been, then, that Hung, knowing the position had become critical, was quoting the words of the Heavenly Elder Brother, who, in the hour of His crisis said "Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father and He shall send me more than twelve legions of angels"? Hung's belief in his intimate relationship to the Heavenly Elder Brother could have developed into an obsession, none the less sincere. In Christendom to-day, one has not to look far to see sincerity developing into obsession, especially among some smaller sects. In the case of Hung, with his imperfect knowledge of Christianity and its metaphysical interpretations, it could have been another instance of ad perniciem solet agi sinceritas to quote Phaedrus.
Was Hung Hsiu-ch'uan the Chinese proto-Communist? Some American scholars are striving hard to prove this. It may be, of course, that they are less interested in discovering the real Hung than in finding some support, surreptitious as it may be, for their more immediate purpose of justifying the present Chinese Communist regime.
It is true, as T'ang Leang-li has written, that Hung "aimed at establishing a new social order" and as Professor Buss has noted that the T'ai Ping rebellion was "a social and economic revolt, which involved an uprising of the peasants, rural proletariat, hand workers, and poorer gentry". But this is only part of the truth, indeed, it fails to diagnose the movement correctly. There were men in China at the time who saw in it a spiritual urge that might have transformed the entire country.
As noted earlier, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, at the time the congregations of God-worshippers became the Shang Ti Hui, claimed all things as his own property. From this it has been argued that he planned a totalitarian rule. But this ignores completely the concept of the early Chinese State, to which he intended to return, which considered all things as belonging to the Emperor as the representative of Heaven. Especially was this the case in regard to land. In the Shih Ching, we find a festal ode, sung by the people at the time of the Spring ploughing by the Chou Emperor Ching Wang, which ran like this:
"In majesty, begin the work,
Over your own broad fields;
And set behind their ploughs,
Your myriad men in pairs."
Of course, this concept was not peculiar to ancient China, it was common to most primitive communities. "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof".
But let us look more closely into this contention that Hung was an early Chinese Communist. From the outset, he sought to relate the lives of his followers to Shang Ti, the Supreme God. He gave that name to his fighting forces. As the Englishman Lindley, who of all foreigners had the best opportunity of appraising the real Hung as he lived among the T'ai Pings, has written, "the ten commandments are the guide of these people". Can we imagine a Communist adopting this can of conduct? By what stretch of the imagination could we regard Hung's "Book of Instructions" or "Book of Heavenly Rules" as a Communist manifesto? Would any Communist possibly have been at home among the God-worshippers or attending the morning prayers of the Shang Ti Hui?
It is true that when the Soldiers of God were on the long trek to Nanking, all things were held in common. But such was the case with the Hebrews during their 40 years of wandering to the Promised Land. Were they Communists? The early Christians, in daily expectation of the Second Coming had "all things in common" but nobody will bracket them with Communists.
What of the ownership of land? There is not a shred of evidence that the agrarian programme of Hung was Communist. On the contrary, all the known facts point in the opposite direction. When the first congregations were formed, those who held more land than was necessary for their own needs, and such were few, allowed less fortunate members to till part of the land for themselves. It was simply an act of Christian charity. Later, when the T'ai Pings settled in and around Nanking, those who wished to leave the fighting forces were given land, taken from the gentry, as their own property. Li Hsiu-cheng, who played an important part in the organisation of the regime, has given us this information in his autobiography.
There is no evidence that Hung Hsiu-ch'uan was a despot. He did not attempt to impose his will on the congregations but was content to be their spiritual guide. When asked to decide on the claims of Eastern and Western Princes to have had visions, he gave them both the benefit of his faith in their sincerity. Had he desired, he could have ruled against both and received the support of the congregations. Later, when the time arrived to take military measures for their protection, he summoned the leaders to conference and placed the situation before them. The decision was reached by vote of the assembly. It is true that he claimed to have received a decree from Heaven but he interpreted that largely in a spiritual sense. When the Heavenly Dynasty was set up at Nanking, he gave little attention to military and economic affairs, preferring to leave such in the hands of others while he contented himself with setting forth the spiritual principles that were to be followed. Temporal and spiritual responsibilities were separated. Hardly the course that a despot or ambitious imposter would have taken.
It is true that some of his claims appear to us as they seemed to Europeans in China at the time, as most arrogant. When, in April 1853, Sir George Bonham, the British Plenipotentiary, aboard H. M. S. Hermes, arrived at Nanking for the purpose of discussing the question of the observance of treaty rights, he was given a piece of yellow silk, on which was written the T'ai Ping decree, which, inter alia, expressed gratitude that "the English from afar have now come to give their allegiance to our Sovereign" and adding the "earnest hope that you will, with us, achieve the merit of serving diligently our Sovereign, and, with us, repay the goodness of the Father of souls". Naturally enough, Sir George Bonham had to reply that he was unable to understand the communication "especially that part which implies that the English are subordinate to your Sovereign". But this assumption was not peculiar to the T'ai Pings. Had not the Manchus in Peking done the same on a number of occasions? When the British Mission, led by Lord Macarthey, was on its way to Peking in 1793, the boats and carts assigned to it bore flags with the inscription "Ambassador bearing tribute from the country of England". Emperor Chia Ch'ing had been no less obdurate than his father Ch'ien Lung and when the Czar's envoy refused to Kotow before him, the Russian Mission was simply dismissed. The British Mission led by Lord Amherst suffered much the same fate in 1816, because the British, like the Russians, refused to prostrate themselves before the Emperor as a sign that England was a tributary state. Lord Amherst was never received in audience. Neither the French nor Americans in China took the T'ai Ping claim as seriously as did the British and they held the view that more contact with foreigners would probably lead to the abandonment of such arrogance, which they believed to be based, not as in the case of the Manchus on a sense of superiority, but on ignorance.
Much has been written of the cruelty of the T'ai Pings. Without doubt, they were responsible for many atrocities but two world wars have since demonstrated that Europeans are capable of even worse conduct. Without attempting to justify the T'ai Pings, it is well to remember that the Chinese Imperialists, whom Britain supported, were equally as brutal. Viceroy Li Hung Chang admitted that in Shanghai he had "ordered the T'ai Ping prisoners to be handed over to the butchers to replenish their supplies". The Peking Gazette of March 1853 mentioned that when the Western Prince, the Shih Wang, was killed at Changsha "his body was dug up and cut to pieces as a warning to all. His heart was offered up as a sacrifice to the officers and men of the Imperial forces who had died in battle, in order to gratify the feelings of the living and comfort the spirits of the departed".
The case of Soochow must ever remain as evidence of the barbarity and inhumanity of the Manchus, which even shocked their British supporters in London. When that city was surrounded in 1863, the T'ai Pings agreed to surrender on condition that both leaders and people would be spared and there would be no looting. Gordon gave his personal assurance that this would be honoured. Both Li Hung Chang and General Ch'ing supported him. However, when Soochow had been occupied, it was discovered that nine leading T'ai Pings had been decapitated near the Viceroy's headquarters (a boat on Soochow Creek) and the city had been reduced to shambles, with the dead lying across the streets and the canals choked with bodies. This so incensed Gordon that he went in search of the Viceroy, with his revolver in hand, ready to shoot him for his treachery. Gordon never had the least doubt that Li Hung Chang was responsible for the dastardly deed. Prime Minister Palmerston declared in the House of Commons on March 4, 1864, that "We hope the Futai's (Li Hung Chang) treachery will be punished; we especially resent it because Major Gordon was made the unwilling instrument to lure these people into the power of the Futai and was, of course, so far, an instrument to their barbarous execution".
Li Hung Chang has given the world his version of what happened, and although it has been generally recognised that he was lying, the following entry in his diary is worth noting:
"December 8. 1863. Governor's Temporary Yamen. Soochow. Last night, to please the Wangs, I invited them to a council of peace and a banquet, and it was interesting the way we settled old scores in words. I spent, too, a large sum on the foods, and the table was well set. There was much merriment and good nature, and I enjoyed meeting these men - Long Haired Rebels though they were. But I made a serious mistake in not having a strong guard placed about the east gate, at which my large boat was lying, and before the banquet was ended, a great horde of lawless fellows, some of them Imperialists but the majority of them drunken fellows of the Wang'a army, poured through the gate, killing and assaulting. I was one of the first to hear the great uproar and believing the marauders might be intent on despatching me, for threats had been made in many quarters, I made my escape from the barge and hurriedly entered the city. Ch'ing also managed to escape from the hands of the rioters and followed me to the landing and into the city. Immediately, I sent orders by officers we met, to get troops as soon as possible and arrest all the rioters, but these orders were not quickly obeyed and a scene of wholesale slaughter occurred upon the barge".
Later that day, Li Hung Chang entered in his diary that "Gordon came and accused me of plotting the murder of the Wangs. I asked him why I should plot or go around a mountain when a mere order, written with five strokes of a quill, would have accomplished the same thing. He did not answer. But he insulted me and said that he would report my treachery, as he called it, to London and Shanghai. Let him do so; he cannot bring the crazy Wangs back". Evidently the Viceroy had a bad night, either from the strokes of conscience or fear of Gordon's revolver, for at midnight he had again opened his diary to write that "Gordon has called and repeated his former statements about the Wangs. He was in a most angry mood. He refused the ten thousand taels I had ready for him and with an oath said that he did not want the Throne's medal". The Viceroy was trying hard to cover himself. It was very significant, as Gordon himself tells us, that General Ch'ing had done his utmost to keep him (Gordon) away from the scene of the tragedy and actually had him walking well into the night in another part of the city. However, the slaughter at Soochow only whetted the blood-lust of the Imperialists, for on entering Nanking, shortly afterwards, they slew, according to the Peking Gazette, no less than 30,000 of the inhabitants. One might have thought that Gordon would have terminated his association with the Imperialists after the Soochow treachery, but although he made various threats to resign, he continued with them till the Battle of Yangchow sealed the fate of the T'ai Pings.
What of the missionaries in China at the time? How did they regard Hung and his followers? This is probably the most important question of all in our search for the real Hung Hsiu-ch'uan. But before attempting an answer to this question, it is wise to look at the missionaries themselves. Most of the Protestant missionaries in China, at that time, were products of the Evangelical Revival and kindred expressions of Christian fervour and interpretation. As such, they combined the splendid virtues of those crusades with their failings, chief of which was a narrow-mindedness, which prevented them from thinking Chinese and seeing truth through Chinese eyes. They interpreted Christianity in Western terms. In some cases their God was almost a European. Possibly they and their successors in China did not have much lasting influence on the life of the country whereas the scholar-missionaries did exercise a profound influence, which even Communism has not been able to eradicate. The Jesuit contribution to scientific knowledge has meant more than their religious teaching and the Protestant Morrison's printing press exercised a far wider effect than any conversions he had. Indeed, he himself confessed that the number of these was very small.
There were individual missionaries who sympathised with Hung and his followers to the very end, but the majority were not so favourably disposed towards them. As the historian surveys the movement across the span of a century and examines the statements of many missionaries in China at the time, he cannot escape the conclusion that the indigenous nature of the T'ai Ping form of Christianity was strongly resented. Western missionaries knew nothing of it till 1853, twenty years after Hung's first contact with Christianity and ten years after the formation of the God-worshippers congregations. Indeed, when they did hear of the T'ai Ping claims to be Christians, they found it impossible to credit the reports, as they had no part in bringing the movement into existence. At the time they were first hearing of it. Missionary Roberts admitted that he had been at a loss to understand how Hung Hsiu-ch'uan could have gained such a knowledge of Christianity. They did not realise that many of the doctrinal peculiarities of T'ai Ping Christianity were the result of the absence of contact with missionaries from the West.
From 1853 onwards, as they became more conversant with the beliefs and claims of the T'ai Pings, the missionary opposition hardened. As the writer believes this to have been ill-founded and the result of a complete failure to see T'ai Ping Christianity in its true perspective, it is well to examine the position in some detail.
The claim by Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and several of his followers to have had visions of an ecstatic character was strongly resented by the missionaries. Evidently, such exalted experiences were for the elect in the West and Chinese were not deemed eligible to participate. Saul on the Damascus Road, Augustine in his Italian garden, the Venerable Bede in his abbey in Northumberland, Ignatius on the Field of Pampeluna, John Bunyan in gaol at Bedford but not Hung on his sick bed in the Chinese village of Hwa. Then, there was that remarkable vision that came to Mohammed, in some respects so very like that claimed by Hung. As he laid in the cave on Mount Hira the angel Gabriel appeared to him and said: "Purify thy garments and shun abominations". But then, Mohammed was to the Evangelical a Moslem and a heathen.
It is true that Hung's vision in 1837 had a strong flavour of Taoism about it and was forcibly reminiscent of stories associated with the 仙人 (Hsien Jen), who lived beside the sacred stream that flowed from the central mountains of the world. Their mission, especially that of the 八仙 (Pa Hsien) was to save mankind in hours of crisis and perform acts of healing. Was it so strange that Hung should connect the Venerable Ones in his vision with these Hsien Jen and the waters where he washed with that sacred stream? Was it remarkable that his Jordan should rise in the distant K'un Lun? There are many instances in Christian literature of Western saints experiencing trances, in which the setting was of a distinctive local character. Hung did claim that he had ascended into Heaven. So did Swedenborg. But in his Book of Declarations, he explained this to mean that he had been transported out of the body and "my soul ascended into Heaven". A strong reminder of another who, in the words of St. Paul "was caught up into Paradise and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter".
In his vision, Hung had been warned against worshipping idols. The street preacher, Gutzlaff, had spoken of the idols at Ephesus, and how St. Paul had railed against the worship of Diana of the Ephesians. As the Chinese had no word for Diana, he had translated it as Queen of Heaven, which in Chinese is 天后 (T'ien Hou). But this was the name of the most revered goddess in Kwangtung, especially in Canton and among the fishermen. Was it surprising, then, that Hung destroyed the images of T'ien Hou in the village temples? In his vision, Hung had been commanded to apply the truths he had been taught. Is it to be wondered at, then, that having no contact with Christian missionaries, he should do this against the background of his Confucian training? After all, Christianity itself took over many of the ideas and ceremonies of the pagan world. Are there not Roman and Egyptian cultural relics in our modern Christian observances? If we can Christianise the cults of Isis and Jupiter, why deny Hung and his followers the right to do the same with their native Chinese cults?
Unfortunately, the missionaries in China were not broad enough in their thinking to allow this. Mr. Muirhead, a Shanghai missionary, was an illustration of this failure to understand the ceremonies of the God-worshippers. "Their religious ritual" he wrote "consists in saying grace at meals, chanting the doxology on Friday evening, while small squibs are fired off, gongs beaten, candles lighted, and a written prayer read and burnt, expressive of praise to God". He was most critical of this but he did not understand the age-long Chinese customs. For centuries the Chinese practice of burning paper, on which messages to the ancestral spirits had been written, was based on the belief that, in such manner, the message would more speedily reach Heaven. The writer has seen Chinese write messages on paper, which was attached to a kite, from which it was blown away by the wind to the spirits in the distant mountains of the west. One has only to read of the practices carried out in the cathedral of St. Sophia at Constantinople in the Byzantine era, to note customs, ecclesiastically sanctioned, and much more open to question than this Chinese way of transmitting prayers to Heaven.
Strong exceptions were taken in some missionary circles to what was called Hung Hsiu-ch'uan's "crude concept of regeneration as shown in his story of the new heart he professed to receive". It is true that in his vision one of the Venerable Sages "opened his body and took out his heart, replacing it with another, the wound immediately healing". But, is it not possible to understand this expression of the change that had taken place in his life?
In the Ta Hsueh, the Great Learning, which set forth the key to the understanding of life as Confucius saw it, the rectification or renewal of the heart was the first essential. The author of that work, whoever he was, recorded Confucius as saying that the ancients, in their endeavour to illustrate and display true virtue "first renewed their hearts". No doubt, Hung had pondered on this saying many times. He must have wondered just what this renewal meant and how it was to be achieved. One of the tracts he received from the convert Liang A-fa in Canton had contained the words of the Prophet Ezekiel "Cast away all your transgressions and make you a new heart" and the street preacher had said that "To all who keep these Commandments, the promise of God is 'I will give you a new heart'". With such things turning over and over in his mind, and without any guidance as to the real meaning of such works, is it not understandable that Hung should interpret them literally? When the angel Gabriel admonished Mohammed to "purify thy garments", referring to his thoughts and intentions, the first thing he did was to go to the stream and wash his clothes.
Many years ago I met that great medical missionary of the Congo, Dan Crawford. I remember him saying how difficult it was for the native mind to separate the literal from the spiritual. He mentioned this one illustration. Leading from the village to the mission house was a wide path between the palmtrees. But from the day he preached on the "broad way that leadeth to destruction and the narrow way that leadeth unto life" the natives refused to use that wide path, preferring to take a very narrow way that led to his house. In fact, the wide path that had previously been used henceforth became tabu.
The claims of the Chung Wang and Shih Wang to have had visions in 1851 were used to discredit Hung Hsiu-ch'uan. As already noted, he was not in Kwangsi Province at the time, but was urged by the members of the congregations there to return and decide on these claims. He hastened from Kwangtung Province and after hearing both the Chung Wang and Shih Wang urged the members to accept these visions as realities. When, later, details of these visions were made known in Shanghai, some missionaries branded them as "political" but if we peruse them carefully, we will hardly agree with such a conclusion. However, if some political ideas had already entered the minds of these two, it cannot be held against Hung himself. Did not the early Christians ascribe to the mission of Jesus a political purpose when they asked "When wilt thou restore the Kingdom to Israel?"
The proclamation attributed to the Chung Wang read thus:
"The Heavenly Father speaks to the people, saying 'My children, do you know your Father in Heaven and our Heavenly Brother'? The Father in Heaven then said 'Do you know your true Lord (Hung Hsiu-ch'uan)'? To this the people said 'We know him'. The Father in Heaven then said 'I have sent your lord down into the world to become your Heavenly King; every word he utters is a Heavenly command; you must obey; you must assist your lord and regard him as your king. Do not act in a disorderly manner and do not be lacking in respect. If you fail in these things, trouble will overtake you'".
The proclamation of the Shih Wang was to the effect that on the same day he had the following message for the people:
"The Heavenly Elder Brother speaks to the people thus: 'My younger brethren, you must observe the Heavenly laws and obey the directions given you. You must be at peace among yourselves. If a superior is in the wrong and an inferior in the right, or if an inferior is in the wrong and a superior in the right, do not quarrel and cause dissension among you. In all things, cultivate what is good. Purify your minds. Do not take what belongs to others. You should be diligent in seeking the way to Heaven. When you find it, continue in it. The way may be hard but if you persevere, your reward shall be great. If, having received our directions, you should disobey or retreat, be not surprised if disaster overtakes you'".
Both these proclamations were issued on April 19, 1851. They are to be placed in the same category as many sections of the Hebrew and Buddhist sacred writings. "Thus saith the Lord" was a customary introduction to important directions.
As a purely academic enquiry, it would be interesting to examine just to what extent the Shih Wang had been influenced, if at all, by the philosophy of the Tao Te Ching, and especially the earlier section.
It was the Christology of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan that gave most offence to the missionaries. Here again, there was the lamentable failure to examine Hung's concept against his Confucian background. The religious expression of all peoples is, to a greater or lesser degree, anthropomorphic. Spiritual ideas are expressed in human terms. This is not peculiar to the so-called pagan creeds as the history of Christianity itself provides. The use of the term person in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, derived from the original Latin persona, meaning a mask or representation, is only one of these.
The Chinese concept of the spiritual world was that it was a perfect counterpart of the earthly order. As China was divided into a number of provinces, each with its number of departments, so is the world of spirits. There are ministries there too as on earth. As, for instance, Yang Hou presiding over the Ministry of Waters and T'ai Sui administering the Ministry of Time. As the family was the basis of all life on earth, so in the spirit world, the gods marry and have their families. Was it surprising, then, that Hung, with his immature knowledge of Christianity and without the guiding contact with Western Missionaries, should have concluded that the Heavenly Father must be associated with a Heavenly Mother and there must be a Heavenly Elder Brother. We know the important place the兄 (elder brother) occupies in the Chinese family. Chinese literature is full of references to it. How often the phrase hsiung k'uan ti jen occurs. As the logos of St. John can only be understood against the background of Philo's philosophy, so the hsiung of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan must be considered in the light of the age long anthropomorphic concepts of the Chinese. If Jesus was the Son of God, He must have had the Heavenly Mother T'ien Ma. Also He must have married, so His wife was T'ien San.
These interpretations shocked the missionaries, who failed to understand that the Chinese mind could not grasp the metaphysics of their creed or comprehend the meaning of the hypostasis, even if it had been explained to them. When the Nestorians had entered China during T'ang dynasty, their doctrine of the two natures in the person of Christ was comprehended by the Chinese. When the Franciscan Friar, William de Rubruck was in Central Asia (A. D. 1253-55), he was asked by a Chinese "Have you ever been to Heaven and seen God?". The Chinese mind has always understood the spiritual in terms of family relations. God made man in His image and the Chinese have though t of God in their image.
Was the religion of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, then, a genuine form of Christianity? Perhaps the best answer to this question is to be found in the words of E. R. Hughes in his Invasion of China by the Western World. "Not for the first time" he wrote "missionaries of all denominations took their colour from official suggestion and believed the propaganda which was passed on from Manchu sources. One cannot but deplore the failure of a movement, which, with better guidance, might have proved the real thing and have established an empire in China, which would have been at least as Christian as that of Constantine".
Why was Britain so interested in bringing about the defeat of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, for most historians are agreed that without British assistance the Imperialists could never have defeated the T'ai Pings. In 1861, Sir Harry Parkes had personally assured the Chung Wang in Nanking that "Britain will maintain her neutrality, provided a British gunboat can be stationed near Nanking to safeguard our trading interests". The two decisive battles, at Soochow and Yangchow, which broke the back of the T'ai Ping resistance and opened the gates of Nanking to the Manchu Imperialists, were won for Peking by British troops. But Britain had no trading interests at either Soochow or Yangchow. Why, then, did Britain ally herself with a degenerate and dissolute dynasty, which had no regards whatever for the well-being of its own people and whose Emperor was more often in a brothel than his audience chamber, and where eunuchs carried on the government, in his absence, against the Nanking regime, which was seeking to improve the condition of the peasantry and making some attempt to introduce a new order on the basis of the Ten Commandments? The T'ai Ping concept of Christianity might have seemed crude to Westerners, but certainly was far superior to the morality of Peking. Perhaps the best answer to these questions will be found by following the course of events from 1853 when the Heavenly Dynasty was established in Nanking till 1864 when it fell.
1853. Sir George Bonham announced British neutrality at Nanking.
1858. Treaty of Tientsin between Peking and the Western Powers.
1860. Convention of Peking between Peking and Britain and France.
1860. Viceroy, Li Hung Chang, recorded in his Diary that the "English have sent in the past four years many well-trained soldiers to our aid".
1861. Sir Harry Parkes assured T'ai Ping leaders of British neutrality and requested the T'ai Pings to refrain from attacking Shanghai for one year. This was agreed to.
1861. British merchants in Shanghai commissioned Frederick Ward to form the "Ever Victorious Army" and offered him a large reward, if he could capture the nearest T'ai Ping stronghold to Shanghai. These negotiations were proceeding some months after the agreement between Sir Harry Parkes and the T'ai Ping leaders.
1861. British Admiral Hope visited Nanking. The Chung Wang asked him why Britain was hostile to the T'ai Pings as the latter desired only a mutual understanding between them.
1861. Hung Hsiu-ch'uan replied to the actions of the British merchants in Shanghai by issuing the proclamation that "Shanghai is a little place and we have nothing to fear from it. We shall now take it to complete our dominion".
1862. T'ai Pings controlled every place of importance inside a 30-mile radius of Shanghai.
1862. Sir Frederick Bruce suggested the creation of a Chinese Navy. He was associated in this with Mr. Horatio Nelson Lay, former Administrator of Customs and Captain Sherard Osborn. British Admiralty directed both to enter Chinese naval service on August 31st.
1862. Admiral Hope co-operated with the "Ever Victorious Army" against the T'ai Pings. British Minister at Peking, Sir Frederick Bruce informed Lord John Russell, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that "Ward's organised force is a valuable nucleus. At Shanghai, there are 40,000 men borne on the pay list of the Government, of whom actually none are to be depended upon, either in the field or behind walls. I have demonstrated to the Government here (Peking) that the funds wasted on this more than useless horde would equip and pay a disciplined force of from twenty to twenty-five thousand men who would be irresistible to any Chinese rebel bands".
1853. An order in Council (London) state that "It shall be lawful for all military officers in Her Majesty's service to enter the service of the Said Emperor (Peking) and to serve the Emperor in any military, warlike or other operations, and for that purpose to go to any place or places beyond the seas - provided that the licence and permission hereby given shall be in force only until the first day of September 1864".
1863. Sir Frederick Bruce wrote to Major Gordon "I have received despatches from Her Majesty's Government, from which I infer that no objection is felt to a British officer commanding that force (Ever Victorious Army) in the field, provided he be on half-pay and in the service of the Chinese Government. I shall be glad if you are able to continue your operations, so as to force the insurgents to abandon Soochow and the line of the Great Canal, without which Shanghai cannot be looked upon as secure from attack. I would rather see you in command of the Chinese than anybody else, as I think the corps in your hands will become dangerous to the insurgents without becoming dangerous to the Chinese Government and oppressive to the population." Major Gordon replied "I think that anyone who contributes to putting down this rebellion fulfills a humans task".
1864. In the House of Commons, Lord Naas expressed the view that "the chief cause of the rebellion has been our interference with the affairs of China". Other members supported him in objecting to the use of Gordon's services by the Peking Government. Prime Minister Palmerston replied that "There is nothing inconsistent with the practice of nations in one friendly country lending to another officers to drill and direct its troops".
1864. Colonel Sykes, in the House of Commons, asked the Prime Minister: "Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pass, unnoticed, further violations of the instructions of the Foreign Office to British Authorities in China and to be strictly neutral in the civil war, which for so long has raged in China?" He stated that his question was prompted by reports that men of the Royal Artillery had been detailed to assist Major Gordon. Prime Minister Palmerston replied: "In my opinion, it is in the interest of England that the rebellion should cease and that the authority of the Imperial Government should be re-established and maintained in China. It was with that object that permission had been given to Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay to organise a naval force for the purpose of co-operating with the Imperial troops. An order in Council had been passed permitting British subjects generally to enter the service of the Chinese Government". This provoked Mr. Baxter to ask: "Does the Government, in future, mean to adhere strictly and honourably to the defence of British property in the treaty ports, refusing any kind of aid, directly or indirectly, to the Imperialists and abandoning the attempt to bolster up and support the Peking Government?". To the Prime Minister replied that "Our reason for interfering in the affairs of China was that our treaty rights were endangered and our national interests at stake. Any measure to increase the commercial relations of the country was deserving of praise". He did not add "moral or otherwise".
It would appear from the above, that British forces were well in field, on the side of the Imperialists, before Major Gordon was assigned to the command of the "Ever Victorious Army". Sir Frederick Bruce's reference to "continue your operation" suggests this, and Li Hung Chang's entry in his diary of June 16, 1860 confirms it. This would mean that British forces were fighting the cause of Peking as early as 1855, five years before Sir Harry Parkes re-affirmed British neutrality at Nanking. The troops mentioned by Li Hung Chang were not ruffians or mere adventurers such as formed the nucleus of Ward's "Even Victorious Army" and the question put to Admiral Hope by the Chung Wang in 1861 shews that the T'ai Pings had reason to believe that trained British troops were in the field against them at that time.
Possibly Britain was playing off one side against the other by her duplicity, till she had succeeded in getting her demands accepted at the convention of Peking, when the Peking Government was forced to withdraw all objections to the British sale of opium, war material to either or both contestants, and any other form of trade she desired. Having humiliated the Peking Government into that position, it served the British purpose to recognise it as the legitimate Government of China, or, in other words, the most useful one, especially as the T'ai Pings strenuously opposed the traffic in opium. This amoral attitude found a convenient pretext for itself in the protestation that the T'ai Pings could never effectively govern the country. Thus the British conscience was salved. Nothing remained then, in 1860, but to come out openly against the T'ai Pings.
It is most probable that the British public, and indeed the House of Commons, knew little of the facts. Prime Minister Palmerston who had boasted that "England is strong enough to brave any consequences" and had gloried in his title of the "strong man" was certainly a lover of power, and, as such, never hesitated to act alone. His instructions were just carried out. Colonel Sykes' question in the 1864 debate suggests that some members of the Commons, even then, had the idea that Britain was neutral in China, whereas she had been at war with the T'ai Pings for some time. The instructions sent by the British Minister in Peking to the Consul in Shanghai indicates on what side British official sympathies were as early as 1860, as were also his advices to the missionaries. Lord Palmerston was too far from China, both in distance and sympathy, to understand the real position. British trading interests meant more to him than the well-being of the Chinese millions. His shortsighted policy failed, completely, to realise that a spiritual dynamism has been born in far-off China, the results of which only the future was to demonstrate.
However, there was one British official in China who did not agree with the policy he was compelled to carry out. T. T. Meadows had spoken to T'ai Ping leaders, walked through the streets of T'ai Ping cities and conversed with the people. He had questioned workers in the fields. While Prime Minister Palmerston was assuring the House of Commons that active support of the Peking Government was "in the interest of England", Mr. Meadows was writing in Shanghai words that were strangely prophetic. Little did he realise that a century later his prophecy was to be both literally and grimly fulfilled. Part of his warning only needs to be repeated:
"If the T'ai Pings succeed, let the three maritime Powers, on the one hand, keep Russia off, and, on the other hand, overcome the absurd T'ai Ping pretensions to universal supremacy and their other obstructive notions, by due use of conciliatory reasoning, of forbearance, of firmness, and, if necessary, of military force vigorously applied. Let this be done till T'aipingism is fairly established for a generation and then the rest of the world may confidently trust to the Chinese forming one of the most insuperable barriers to the Peter-Catherine policy of aggression and the Russian aims at universal domination".
Meadows knew that British policy, in the long run, would benefit no other country than Russia, that no props, made in London, could save the rotten Peking structure for long against the storms that were rising, nor could the "bloody traffic", carried on by British merchants of death in Shanghai, be for the ultimate good of the Chinese people. History has vindicated his warning, as today Russian advisers and military leaders swarm over China; as British traders and bankers are kicked out without compensation for their seized assets, and the Chinese millions groan in their bondage.
Had the T'ai Pings not had to face British armed opposition, but received, at least, the moral support to which they were entitled from a so-called Western civilisation, the entire history of China might have been completely changed. Such, at least, was the considered view of men on the spot, who were more competent to judge than the House of Commons in London. One missionary expressed the view that "had it not been for the opium interests of England, which inspired intervention, China would have been a Christian State in less than 30 years and the whole course of history might have been changed". The conclusions of the British Consular Official, T. T. Meadows, have already been noted, as well as those of the Englishman, A. F. Lindley, who had intimate contact both with the Court of Hung at Nanking and the T'ai Ping armies in the field. One historian, who had watched the T'ai Pings in their progress and was in England when Lord Palmerston defended his policy on May 20, 1864, promptly replied that "The Premier has been the active originator of an intervention against the oppressed natives of China, who were striving to liberate and Christianise their unfortunate country".
There were men in England, at the time, who were conscious of the iniquity of British official policy. Some of these did not spare their words in criticising what they called "this Opium Government". On December 28, 1865, Colonel Sykes had this to say in the House of Commons:
"British bayonets and British shot and shell, in violation of good faith and in violation of a commanded neutrality, have aided a Government, which has been characterised for its constant perfidy and cruelty, to defeat a national party, in which, as we see, was not only a germ of Christianity, of probable development into a rich harvest, but which party also had manifested a desire to cultivate friendly relations with foreigners, with a view to the introduction of Western science and art, as distinguished from the Imperial Government, which stupidly opposes every proposition for the establishment of railways, telegraphs, and other useful objects".
However, one is constrained to set in contrast two official statements, as summing up the whole position, the first by the Chung Wang to Major Gordon, and the other by Lord Palmerston. The Chung Wang, acting, it was stated, under instructions from Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, communicated this message to the British Commander: "In the ways of Heaven, there exists no partiality. There is no sanction to injure others for the advantage of one's self. Though not using opium one's self, to venture, by the enforced sale of it to seduce the people of this land and to seek gain by exposing others to death, is utterly abhorrent to the ways of Heaven". Lord Palmerston, in his justification of British policy, declared that "We have interfered because our national interests were at stake". Those interests he defined as "the commercial relations of the country".
As we draw near to the end of our search, what have we discovered? What was the real Hung Hsiu-ch'uan? What qualities were embodied in his person? Obviously, he was sincere in his attempt to apply his concept of Christianity and the Ten Commandments to the life of his country, which was governed by a corrupt and dissolute Peking. Owing to lack of contact with Western Missionaries, his understanding of Christianity was vague and he endeavoured to synthesise it with Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. This eclecticism resulted in a form of Christianity which differed radically from the accepted dogma of the West. In practice, however, it did renovate the lives of its followers. His original purpose was purely religious but Peking's determination to suppress it resulted in convincing Hung that his movement could not succeed without a change in Peking. Hence the political development in his mind and the determination to overthrow the Manchus. This brought him into conflict with the British Government whose only concern in China was commercial and opium was the most important article of commerce at the time. His visions; the element of fanaticism that marked the latter part of his career; the cruelty that accompanied his campaigns; and the bizarre Oriental luxury with which he surrounded himself, were all explainable accompaniments that were in no way peculiar to him and which must not be allowed to dim our estimate of the man himself.
Some future historian might arise in the Plutarch fashion and write the parallel lives of the two major actors in this great tragedy, Charles Gordon and Hung Hsiu-ch'uan. From his Enderby mother, Gordon had inherited a narrow Evangelicalism with its one-track mind and limited outlook, that accepted the sermons of Rev. R. McCheyne and Scott's Commentaries as the final and absolute interpretation of life. In his youth, Gordon had visions and continued to have them. From the time he was with the Royal Engineers at Pembroke, he became convinced of his divine mission. Providence had set him apart for its own special purpose. This was to dominate all his thinking, irrespective as to whether it cut across conventional ideas or not. In the final days of his career, his Jehovah was the Allah of his Egyptian troops, whom he ordered to attend morning and evening prayers, and over his state chair in the audience room at Khartum he had inscribed in Arabic the words "God rules the hearts of all men". His Christianity did not prevent him from re-introducing slavery and he thought nothing of striking his servants across the face and then lapsing into fits of gloom and doubt and disillusionment. He was typical of all self-appointed men of destiny. His seasons of depression, caused by a sense of his own "terrible sinfulness", did nothing to weaken his confidence in his appointed mission to mankind. In his campaign against the T'ai Pings, he displayed boundless conceit, irascible temper, and was ever the victim of an absorbing superstition, but these things never caused him to doubt for a moment that he was carrying out the decrees of the Most High. Gordon was a Hung Hsiu-ch'uan in English garb.
Charles Gordon was a lover of ceremonial. As Hung had his Heavenly Palace, with its feastings on gold plate, amid sumptuously attired concubines, Gordon had his personal bodyguard of 300 men in bright blue uniforms with scarlet facings and six personal attendants, young boys with coloured robings, selected for their personal appearances. He matched the Yin-Yang dualism of the T'ai Ping leader with his own brand of magic, which, as he wrote to his sister Augusta, consisted of two circles, one representing "man without the indwelling God" and the other "man with the indwelling God". With these before him, he would open his Bible at random and wherever his finger lit, there was the message for the hour.
His first assignment in China was in 1860, when he was ordered to carry out the command of Lord Elgin and, in the name of European civilisation, wreck the Yuen Ming Yuen, the Summer Palace. With his engineers, Gordon consigned to the flames four million pounds worth of pictures, books, tapestries, scrolls and statuary. "Everybody was wild for plunder", he wrote to his sister but "the trouble was these palaces were so large and we were pressed for time, we could not plunder them carefully". At moments during this sacrilegious orgy, Gordon had his fits of depression, during which he suffered much self-accusation and described it all as "a wretchedly demoralising work for an army" but those moments soon passed. He received £48 for his part in the destruction with whatever loot he could secure and he informed his sister that "I have done well". The honour of England had been satisfied as the flames from the burning of those art-treasures mounted to the sky. His next task was to see that the Peking Government honoured its commitments under the Convention of Peking. These included £10,000 for each British Envoy killed (a party of British officers had gone, under a flag of truce, to arrange matters relating to the ratification of the Treaty of Tientsin, and several had been killed); £500 for each soldier-servant of an Envoy; substantial compensation for hardships suffered by British merchants whose opium stocks had grown over-large but who had been prevented from carrying on their nefarious trade by the troubled state of the country. Payments were to be made in instalments and Gordon's job was to see that these were duly made. His force was stationed in Tientsin. It was during this period that he had further visions, following days of illness, which he considered a sign of God's displeasure for his part in looting and burning the Summer Palace.
East and West met intimately in these two men, Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and Charles Gordon. Both superimposed their Christianity on the stratum of another cultus; both were visionaries, protesting their Divine mission and allowing of no challenge; both possessed that strange compound of Evangelicalism and fatalism which drove them to the end; both died in tragic circumstances. After death, both were to live again, the one as a soldier-saint, the other as the inspiration of Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Republic of China. Military might, symbolised in Gordon, vanquished moral might as epitomised in Hung, just as to-day in China physical force overrides justice and the rights of the individual. But Hung unleashed a spiritual dynamic that was to prove greater than the sword of Gordon.
Charles Gordon, as the instrument of British policy, helped to create the circumstances that were, later, to make Communism in China possible by holding back social and agrarian reform and preparing the way for the entry of Russia into Chinese affairs. Had Britain not placed opium interests above morality and remained neutral in the struggle, probably China would have experienced such renovation as would have left little for future Communists to exploit. In fact, Britain, through Charles Gordon, was the first to practice Marxism in China.
Hung Hsiu-ch'uan, on the other hand, though apparently defeated, was to live and struggle again, in the person of another son of Kwangtung. Sun Yat-sen himself has left on record that the only happy days of his boyhood were when he listened with rapt attention to the old men of his village recounting their experiences during the years of the Heavenly Dynasty. Tsui Chi, the Chinese historian, tells of that "old man, to whose stories he (Sun Tai-cheong, milk name of Sun Yat-sen) would listen with shining eyes, who was a veteran of the T'ai Ping rebellion. He would relate, over and over again, the fascinating story of that daring revolt against the Manchu ruler, which had ended just three years before Sun's birth". In later years, Sun Yat-sen was to refer often to those stories that charmed his boyhood mind, and though he was to understand the causes of the failure of that movement, he was never to lose his admiration for Hung himself. There was one teahouse in Choyhung Village that he held in dearest memory. Often, as a boy, he would slip in among the farmers as they talked of their crops and discussed prices and politics over the cups, punctuating their chatter with reminiscences of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and not omitting to remind each other how they themselves had escaped the swords of the avenging Manchus.
Years later, as Provisional President of the Republic of China, Sun Yat-sen was to stand before the tomb of T'ai Tsu, first of the Mings, and offer prayer to the spirit of that champion against foreign domination. In that prayer, as he recited the many vicissitudes that had befallen China since the days of the Mings, he was to make special mention of Hung Hsiu-ch'uan and his "most worthy campaign", adding that as a result of it "the gradual trend of the national will became manifest". A few months before his death, as his early memories began to crowd in on his mind, he was to recall in his Canton lectures, which formed the basis of his Sam Min Chu I, the contribution to the liberation of China that Hung Hsiu-ch'uan had made.
At last, the crows's nest had brought forth its phoenix.