The reform movement of 1898 sought to move the Qing empire toward comprehensive and unprecedented institutional change and thus was a critical event in modern Chinese history. Had it succeeded, China could have, like Meiji Japan, entered the modern era without revolutions. Yet, however determined and daring its leaders, the historic effort was suddenly and tragically cut short by a coup.

The standard view of the Reform Movement has been that, in reaction to China's repeated defeats and humiliation as well as the inadequacy of the Self-strengthening Movement, the reform-minded Kang Youwei (illustration 1) and Liang Qichao finally won support for change from a sympathetic Guangxu Emperor. The reformers then managed to put into effect a nationwide reform program through imperial decrees. But the movement, which lasted barely over one hundred days, came to an abrupt end when the Empress Dowager Cixi and her conservative supporters recaptured political power, executed or imprisoned many of the reformers, and placed the emperor under permanent house arrest.

In surat, an industrial city in Gujarat, a multiplicity of meanings is attached to the cult of the Rifa'i saint by different groups of Muslims, such as the holy man (pir) and his family, his lay followers, the Rifa'i faqirs, and the Tablighis (Reform Muslims who are the main opponents of the cult), as well as by Hindus. It is argued that none of these meanings have come to dominate and entirely marginalize the others. This article will describe a local arena in which debate about Muslim ritual practice is largely an “internal” one among Muslims about such Islamic issues as the relation between God and believer and the sources of authoritative knowledge and behavior. The concept of hereditary, saintly power is paramount in shaping the Rifa'i forms of celebration or “playing” on the saint's day. In discourse about Rifa'i ritual, it is contrasted with “praying” to God.

In surveying the history of Japanese literature since the Meiji period (1868–1912), readers immediately recognize that Japanese literature has been approached most predominantly from the perspective of the question of the “modern.” Although specific subjects of focus have varied, the primary underlying question has been whether a literary work is “modern,” “premodern,” or “antimodern.” This approach has been so firmly embedded in the Japanese literary tradition that it has established itself as the most legitimate way to examine literature written after the Meiji period.

The issue of the “modern” is related to the question of Japanese modernization; it is unquestionably important and deserves full critical attention in view of the geopolitical position of Japan in Asia, affected by Western hegemonic power over the past few centuries. However, because of this exclusive focus, other significant questions, including questions related to gender, have escaped critical attention.

The enigmatic images contained in the Book of Changes (Yijing or Zhouyi) have been interpreted, since shortly after the final redaction of the text, to refer to universal themes, transforming a text that was originally used in divination into a repository of wisdom for the ages. While this tradition continues strong more than twenty-five-hundred years after its first emergence, it has been challenged in the present century by a new historiographical approach that has attempted to return ancient Chinese texts to the immediate historical contexts of their composition and to interpret their language within the strictures of that context.

Ramon myers recently reviewed in this journal four books analyzing China's prewar economy and Philip Huang added a reply to some of Myers's criticisms. They clearly disagree about how best to characterize China's Republican-period economy. Myers suggests that books by Loren Brandt, David Faure, and Thomas Rawski collectively reveal different aspects of modern economic development, while Huang presents the concept of “involutionary growth” as a means of understanding the economic situation. In response, Philip Huang corrects what he takes as misrepresentations of his argument by Myers through a restatement of his major themes.