Pacifism’s Appeal: Ethos, History,

Politics Jorg Kustermans

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/pacifisms-appeal-ethos-history-politics-jorg-kusterma
ns/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Biota Grow 2C gather 2C cook Loucas

https://textbookfull.com/product/biota-grow-2c-gather-2c-cook-
loucas/

A Requiem for Peacebuilding? Jorg Kustermans

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-requiem-for-peacebuilding-
jorg-kustermans/

Norco 80 the true story of the most spectacular bank

robbery in American history First Hardcover Edition
Houlahan

https://textbookfull.com/product/norco-80-the-true-story-of-the-
most-spectacular-bank-robbery-in-american-history-first-
hardcover-edition-houlahan/

Psyche and Ethos: Moral Life After Psychology Amanda

Anderson

https://textbookfull.com/product/psyche-and-ethos-moral-life-
after-psychology-amanda-anderson/
The Haiti Reader: History, Culture, Politics Laurent
Dubois

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-haiti-reader-history-
culture-politics-laurent-dubois/

Constitutional ethos: liberal equality for the common

good 1st Edition Tsesis

https://textbookfull.com/product/constitutional-ethos-liberal-
equality-for-the-common-good-1st-edition-tsesis/

Muslim Volunteering in the West: Between Islamic Ethos

and Citizenship Mario Peucker

https://textbookfull.com/product/muslim-volunteering-in-the-west-
between-islamic-ethos-and-citizenship-mario-peucker/

The Brazil Reader: History, Culture, Politics James N

Green

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-brazil-reader-history-
culture-politics-james-n-green/

The Darkness Appeal: (Omegaverse) (The Sins of Darkness

Duet Book 2) 1st Edition A.J. Moran

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-darkness-appeal-omegaverse-
the-sins-of-darkness-duet-book-2-1st-edition-a-j-moran/
RETHINKING PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES
SERIES EDITOR: OLIVER P. RICHMOND

Pacifism’s
Appeal
Ethos, History, Politics

Edited by
Jorg Kustermans
Tom Sauer
Dominiek Lootens
Barbara Segaert
Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies

Series Editor
Oliver P. Richmond
University of Manchester
Manchester, UK
This agenda-setting series of research monographs, now more than a
decade old, provides an interdisciplinary forum aimed at advancing inno-
vative new agendas for approaches to, and understandings of, peace and
conflict studies and International Relations. Many of the critical volumes
the series has so far hosted have contributed to new avenues of analy-
sis directly or indirectly related to the search for positive, emancipatory,
and hybrid forms of peace. New perspectives on peacemaking in practice
and in theory, their implications for the international peace architecture,
and different conflict-affected regions around the world, remain crucial.
This series’ contributions offers both theoretical and empirical insights
into many of the world’s most intractable conflicts and any subsequent
attempts to build a new and more sustainable peace, responsive to the
needs and norms of those who are its subjects.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14500
 Jorg Kustermans · Tom Sauer
Dominiek Lootens · Barbara Segaert
Editors

Pacifism’s Appeal
Ethos, History, Politics
Editors
Jorg Kustermans Tom Sauer
Department of Political Science Department of Political Science
University of Antwerp University of Antwerp
Antwerp, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium

Dominiek Lootens Barbara Segaert

University Centre Saint-Ignatius University Centre Saint-Ignatius
Antwerp Antwerp
Antwerp, Belgium Antwerp, Belgium

Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies

ISBN 978-3-030-13426-6 ISBN 978-3-030-13427-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13427-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931752

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover design © MC Richmond

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Contents

1 Introduction: Why Pacifism? 1

Jorg Kustermans, Tom Sauer, Dominiek Lootens
and Barbara Segaert

Part I Contemporary Ethos of Pacifism

2 War, Hostilities, Terrorism: A Pacifist Perspective 11

Cheyney Ryan

3 Pacifism as Re-appropriated Violence 41

Amanda Cawston

Part II Global Intellectual History of Pacifism

4 The Pacifisms of the Peace Movement 63

Martin Ceadel

5 Tolstoy’s Pacifism and the Critique of State Violence 81

Iain Atack

v
vi    Contents

6 Toward a Global Understanding of Pacifism: Hindu,

Islamic, and Buddhist Contributions 103
Meena Sharify-Funk

7 Judaism, Zionism and Pacifism: Past, Present, Future 137

Mark H. Gelber

Part III A Pacifist Global Order?

8 Emancipation from Violence Through Global Law

and Institutions: A Post-Deutschian Perspective 153
Heikki Patomäki

9 ‘Pacifism’, and China’s ‘Peaceful Rise’ and ‘Peaceful

Development’ 179
Bart Dessein

10 Just Peacemaking as a Bridge to Ecumenical

and Interfaith Solidarity for Peace 199
Nathan C. Funk

11 Conclusion: On the Appeal of Pacifism 229

Jorg Kustermans, Tom Sauer and Barbara Segaert

Index 243
 Notes on Contributors

Iain Atack is Assistant Professor of International Peace Studies at the

Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin. He is the author of
Nonviolence in Political Theory (2012) and The Ethics of Peace and War
(2005) (both Edinburgh University Press).
Amanda Cawston is Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Tilburg
University. Her research concerns the moral status of violence and
non-violence, philosophical accounts of pacifism and the ethics of
self-defense. She has further interests in topics in feminist philosophy,
migration ethics and attitudinal approaches to non-human animal ethics.
Martin Ceadel is Emeritus Professor of Politics, University of Oxford,
and Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford, where he taught from
1979 to 2015. He has published five single-authored books with Oxford
University Press, of which the most recent is Living the Great Illusion:
Sir Norman Angell, 1872–1965 (2009).
Bart Dessein is full Professor at the Department of Languages and
Cultures of Ghent University, Belgium. He has published extensively on
China’s ancient political philosophy and its revaluation in contemporary
society, as well as on the relation between (civil) religion and nationalism
in post nineteenth-century China.
Nathan C. Funk is Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies
at Conrad Grebel University College in Waterloo, Canada. His writ-
ings focus on Islamic-Western relations, the contemporary Middle East,

vii
viii    Notes on Contributors

sustained dialogue, and the role of cultural and religious factors in local-
ized peacebuilding and social change processes.
Mark H. Gelber is Professor Emeritus of comparative literature and
German-Jewish studies at Ben-Gurion University, Israel. In 2001 he
was elected to the German Academy for Language and Literature
(Darmstadt). He has been a guest researcher/professor in the US,
Belgium, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand and China.
Jorg Kustermans is Assistant Professor of international relations in the
Department of Political Science at the University of Antwerp in Belgium.
He does research on the conceptual history of peace and on the shifting
sources of international authority.
Dominiek Lootens is Referent at the Centre for Dialogue at Campus
Riedberg (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main). He has published
on the history of pacifism: Lootens, D. (2017). Thomas Merton and
the spiritual roots of protest: Educational reflections on the peacemaker
retreat. The Merton Seasonal, 42, 12–16.
Heikki Patomäki is Professor of World Politics at University of
Helsinki, Finland. Patomäki’s research interests include philosophy
and methodology of social sciences, peace research, futures studies and
global political economy. He has published more than 20 books and
200 papers. Patomäki’s most recent book is Disintegrative Tendencies in
Global Political Economy: Exits and Conflicts (Routledge, 2018).
Cheyney Ryan is Fellow of Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics,
Law, and Armed Conflict, where he is Director of Human Rights
Programs. He is also co-chair of the Oxford Consortium on Human
Rights. His work focuses on the relation of pacifism and non-violence to
contemporary just war theory.
Tom Sauer is Associate Professor in International Politics at the
Universiteit Antwerpen (Belgium). He is specialized in international
security, and more in particular in nuclear arms control, proliferation,
and disarmament. He is a former BCSIA Fellow at Harvard University
(US), and an active member of Pugwash.
Barbara Segaert holds a master diploma in Oriental Studies, Islamic
Studies and Arab Philology (KU Leuven), Belgium and a master in the
Social Sciences (Open University), UK. She is scientific coordinator at the
 Notes on Contributors    ix

University Centre Saint-Ignatius Antwerp where she develops academic

programmes on various topics of contemporary relevance to society.
Meena Sharify-Funk is Associate Professor for the Religion and
Culture Department at Wilfrid Laurier University. She has 5 books and
has written and presented a number of articles and papers on Islamic and
Sufi hermeneutics, women and Islam and the role of cultural and reli-
gious factors in peacemaking.
 List of Figures

Fig. 8.1 The ethical circle of non-violence (pacific-ism) 154

Fig. 8.2 From counterfinality to social and political change 164
Fig. 8.3 Generation of a security community 169

xi
 List of Tables

Table 8.1 Amalgamation and integration 158

Table 10.1 Comparing the original 7 practices to the updated list
of 10 practices 205

xiii
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction: Why Pacifism?

Jorg Kustermans, Tom Sauer, Dominiek Lootens

and Barbara Segaert

1.1   Why Write About Pacifism?

It strikes us as undeniable that the notion of pacifism—the ideas and
attitudes that the notion encapsulates—appeals to people’s moral intui-
tions. Although many of us enjoy the vicarious experience of (stylized)
violence (when we watch a film or read a novel), most of us feel much
less comfortable with the actual exercise or firsthand witnessing of real,

J. Kustermans (*) · T. Sauer

Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
e-mail: jorg.kustermans@uantwerpen.be
T. Sauer
e-mail: tom.sauer@uantwerpen.be
D. Lootens · B. Segaert
University Centre Saint-Ignatius Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
e-mail: dominiek.lootens@ucsia.be; D.Lootens@cfd-frankfurt.de
B. Segaert
e-mail: barbara.segaert@ucsia.be
D. Lootens
Centre for Dialogue at Campus Riedberg, Frankfurt, Germany

© The Author(s) 2019 1

J. Kustermans et al. (eds.), Pacifism’s Appeal,
Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13427-3_1
2 J. KUSTERMANS ET AL.

in-the-flesh acts of violence. When we do end up committing an act of

undeniable violence, many of us will feel guilty. When we are forced to
commit an act of violence against our will, many of us will try to evade
the command or follow up on it half-heartedly. As was documented in
multiple wars of the nineteenth and twentieth century, soldiers, especially
the conscripted ones, would often deliberately miss their targets. They
would not fire at the enemy, but shoot their bullets in the air (Grossman
2009, pp. 12–13). Human beings are certainly capable of aggression, and
there are situations where we might expect human beings to act and react
violently, but most human beings do not seem to be fond of violence.
It causes them distress to watch it live and they feel remorse when they
have engaged in it.1 Or more precisely: when they know themselves to have
engaged in violence. It follows that at least the core idea of pacifism—that
violence ought to be shunned—will appeal to many a (modern) person.
Pacifism, one could say, chimes with a basic human instinct to shy
away from violence. There is a good reason, then, to assume that many
people would call themselves pacifists, but this turns out not to be the
case, neither among laypeople nor among intellectual elites. Committed
pacifism remains a minority position. ‘Within international relations in
recent decades,’ notes a recent paper in the same vein, ‘pacifism has been
a marginalised position, most often figuring as a foil to just war theory in
debates over the ethics of war’ (Hutchings 2018, p. 176; Jackson 2018).
This invites a number of questions. Why is it that pacifism fails to per-
suade a general audience (in spite of its intuitive appeal)? Why is it that
just-war-thinking has managed to become the dominant framework to
think about questions of war and peace, and that, as a consequence, so
many of us are busy contemplating and elaborating justifications for vio-
lence (notwithstanding our seemingly inherent dislike of it)? How ought
the pacifists’ appeal be expressed for it not to be experienced—as we
think it often is—as a siren song, and thus not to be warned against for
its dangerous allure?
We are posing these questions at a time when pacifism seems to be
staging a comeback. Recent years have witnessed the publication of a
number of texts that take up the ‘defence of pacifism’ and do so artic-
ulately (e.g., Howes 2016; Hutchings 2018). This very volume could
easily be read as a part of that movement of pacifistic resurgence. Many
of our contributors write from a pacifist (or ‘pacificist’) position and
express an awareness that pacifism cries for an update. A shifting geo-
political and geocultural context certainly motivates them to rethink the
 1 INTRODUCTION: WHY PACIFISM? 3

pacifistic project and to reinvigorate the pacifistic tradition. But it is also

(their reading of) that same shifting context that strengthens their con-
viction that pacifism ought to have wider resonance. They argue that the
theory of just war had its chance, but all it did was to strengthen the mil-
itary-industrial-entertainment complex. The concept of a just war sounds
virtuous—it suggests ‘wisdom’ and ‘courage’—but it serves to sustain a
vicious international order. Such is many of our contributor’s appraisal
of the current situation, which leads them again to make the plea for the
appeal of pacifism. Whether this appeal will resonate, and to what extent
it will do so, remains an open question. In the conclusion to this volume,
in an attempt to respond to these questions, we ascertain the promise of
pacifism’s renewed appeal.

1.2   What to Write About Pacifism?

But first we let our authors speak. As its subtitle suggests, this volume
consists of three parts. The first part articulates a contemporary ‘ethos
of pacifism’ and develops a coherent proposition as to what pacifism
could—and maybe should—mean today. Cheyney Ryan defends the con-
tinuing viability of a pacifist stance in response to the continuing exist-
ence and operation of (what he dubs) the war system. Amanda Cawston
radicalizes Ryan’s reflections: it is not just warfare that ought to concern
us, but violence more generally, and much as with contemporary war-
fare, we have become alienated from today’s violence. In order to rein-
vigorate pacifism, she suggests, we need to ‘re-appropriate violence’. The
appeal of pacifism will be undeniable once we recognize our implication
in modern society’s manifold structures and processes of violence.
Ryan’s and Cawston’s chapters are steeped in the history of paci-
fism. Their contemporary articulation of the pacifist position clearly
draws sustenance from earlier forms of pacifism, as well as from debates
in and about those earlier forms. Their historical resources are mainly
Euro-American in origin. However, if pacifism wants to achieve wider
appeal, if it truly wants to weigh in on international debates in our
post-Western world, then it should ‘de-provincialize’ its repertoire
of intellectual resources. Such is the intuition that animates the sec-
ond part of the volume, which begins the reconstruction of a ‘global
intellectual history of pacifism’. To de-provincialize need not mean
to ignore the province of Europe, especially not in our particular case,
given that the very concept of ‘pacifism’ is undeniably of European
4 J. KUSTERMANS ET AL.

stock. Martin Ceadel documents the Western European history of pac-

ifism, paying specific attention to the internal debates within the British
pacifist camp. Iain Atack then begins the move east. He describes the
pacifism of Lev Tolstoy and emphasizes its radical nature by comparing
it to the peace-thinking of Immanuel Kant. Meena Sharify Funk contin-
ues the move east and turns southward as well. She excavates pacifistic
strands from within the (polysemous) traditions of Islam, Hinduism and
Buddhism. Mark Gelber closes of the second part with a similar explo-
ration of the presence (and position) of pacifistic ideas in Jewish and
Zionist thought. Pacifism is clearly not a prerogative solely of Western
civilization: there have been pacifists in all great civilizations. Even if pac-
ifism is definitive of none of the world traditions, it is nonetheless a pres-
ence within all of them.
It is very clear from Cheyney Ryan’s opening chapter that pacifism
need not entail a withdrawal from the world—although pacifist expec-
tations are maybe bound to be disappointed and, as a result, the allure
of a retreat from the world sometimes great. Pacifists oftentimes engage
the world politically. They want to make peace (pacem facere). They
are peacebuilders. Traditionally, this has often meant that pacifists have
sketched out plans to redesign the institutional architecture of world pol-
itics. Today’s pacifism will have to engage in that task as well, although
it cannot simply copy old models. Some have proven inadequate, and,
more generally, it can simply not be assumed that that which worked
in the past will work in the present or the future too. Changed circum-
stances demand revisions to any plan for perpetual peace. In this light,
the third part of this volume investigates the prospects of a ‘pacifistic
global order’. It begins with a chapter by Heikki Patomäki, with a
sketch of what he calls a ‘concrete utopia’. In the spirit of Karl Deutsch
(1968), he imagines the establishment of a global security community
committed to processes of peaceful change. The utopia is a concrete one.
Patomäki spells out its cultural and institutional prerequisites. A global
security community, he insists, must build on democratic institutions
with self-transformative capacity and these institutions must in turn be
grounded in a commitment to dialogical hermeneutics. However, Bart
Dessein’s chapter on China’s world-political discourse—in which meta-
phors of peacefulness abound—makes it clear that the establishment of a
global security community will not come easily. China is on the rise and
it speaks the language of peace (even when it often acts otherwise). It is
committed to an orderly international environment, but its conception
 1 INTRODUCTION: WHY PACIFISM? 5

of a peaceful international order is uncomfortable with Patomäki’s con-

ception of a pacifistic international order. Other than the rise of China
(and other emerging powers), the resurgence of religion is also often
portrayed as an obstacle to (oftentimes) secular plans for perpetual
peace. Nathan Funk takes up this matter. He accepts that religion can
be a source of conflict, but nonetheless defends the moral agency of reli-
gious communities in its capacity for cooperative governance, beyond
state-centric thinking. He promotes just peacemaking as an organizing
framework and interfaith dialogue as its cornerstone. Religions can pro-
mote peace, he argues, if they shake off their pretensions to unqualified
truth and allow themselves to show ‘holy envy’; if, that is, they accept
the need for self-transformation.
In a concluding chapter, the editors of this volume will reflect ‘on
the appeal of pacifism’. Precisely what is its appeal? How has its appeal
evolved over time? How far does its appeal reach? And in light of these
questions (and our answers to them): what can pacifism accomplish?
What are its limits?

1.3  How to Write About Pacifism?

The study of pacifism, as a body of thought aspiring to influence political
praxis, can happen either from a position of involvement or a position of
detachment. In the former case, one sets out to evaluate the intellectual
and political merits of pacifism and, at the conclusion of one’s efforts,
one invariably comes out against pacifism or in favour of it. One either
defends the value of pacifism or one puts its merit into doubt. Such an
exercise will never happen in an intellectual vacuum. The merit of paci-
fism (or any other body of political thought) is typically a relative merit.
One does not simply defend pacifism; rather, one defends it against
attacks. One reconstructs it in light of earlier (politically motivated)
misrepresentations. One does not promote pacifism in the abstract; one
champions it in light of the deficiencies of rival doctrines (such as just-
war-thinking) and in light of one’s reading of the changing circumstances
(such as the consolidation of the military-industrial-­ entertainment
complex). The same argument applies to those assessments that con-
clude that pacifism is a dubious set of ideas. But whether one defends
or attacks pacifism, in both cases one studies it from a position of
involvement. One wants to see it succeed or see it fail. One wants to
add to or subtract from its political power. As mentioned before, most
6 J. KUSTERMANS ET AL.

of our contributors write from such a position of involvement. What is

more, they want to see pacifism succeed. They want to add to its political
power. They come out in defence of pacifism.
As editors of this volume, and as organizers of the workshop that
constituted its conception, we do not share our contributors’ involve-
ment with pacifism. We are writing from a position of detachment. By
this we do not mean that we are keeping the question of pacifism’s ulti-
mate merit in balance. Although we do not necessarily agree among
each other about the value of pacifism, each of us certainly has an idea of
where we stand individually. However, when we choose to write from a
position of detachment, we choose to approach the question of pacifism
with a different concern in mind. Rather than assess the (relative) merit
of pacifism, we want to understand pacifism as a social phenomenon, as a
historically situated and historically evolving way of thinking, feeling, and
acting. We wish to contextualize its emergence, its transformation, and
thus also the vagaries, the ebb and flow, of its appeal. Rather than defend
pacifism, we will attempt to give an interpretive account of it.
Obviously, the two approaches to the study of pacifism—involvement
and detachment—do not exclude each other and neither are they unre-
lated. The defence of pacifism that our authors stage forms the most
important resource for our understanding of pacifism and thus also for
our account of its appeal. And, in reverse, our account of pacifism’s
appeal can eventually feed back into the arguments that our contributors
make—for better or worse. It will become very clear in the chapters that
follow that the pacifism of today is not the same as the pacifism of yester-
day and neither will the pacifism of tomorrow necessarily be the same as
the pacifism of today. Whether its appeal will sound stronger tomorrow
than it does today remains to be seen.

1.4  A Word of Thanks

This volume consists of papers presented at a workshop organized
in Antwerp on the 6th, 7th and 8th of December 2017. All chapters
were substantially revised after the workshop and many of them bear
clear traces of the discussions that we had during our three-day gather-
ing. For a variety of reasons, not all of the papers presented then could
be included in this volume. We would nonetheless like to thank all of
those who participated in the workshop for having contributed to the
lively debates that marked the event. The workshop was organized and
 1 INTRODUCTION: WHY PACIFISM? 7

sponsored by the University Centre Saint Ignatius Antwerp (UCSIA) as

a first in a series of three workshops on War & Peace. We would like to
thank UCSIA’s board for sharing our belief that questions of war and
peace are in need of continuous consideration and that a purely scholarly
workshop remains an apt setting within which to pursue such questions.

Note
1. But cf. Schinkel (2004), who points out that at least some people revel in
the exercise of violence. They commit violence for its own sake. Schinkel
develops the concept of autotelic violence to come to terms with this phe-
nomenon. Our point of departure is that incidents of autotelic violence
form an exception to the general rule that people do not enjoy the direct
experience of real violence.

References
Deutsch, K. (1968). Political community and the North American area:
International organization in the light of historical experience. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Grossman, D. (2009). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war
and society. New York: Back Bay Books.
Howes, D. E. (2016). Freedom without violence: Resisting the Western political
tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hutchings, K. (2018). Pacifism is dirty: Towards an ethico-political defence.
Critical Studies on Security, 6(2), 176–192.
Jackson, R. (2018). Pacifism: The anatomy of a subjugated knowledge. Critical
Studies on Security, 6(2), 160–175.
Schinkel, W. (2004). The will to violence. Theoretical Criminology, 8(1), 5–31.
 PART I

Contemporary Ethos of Pacifism

 CHAPTER 2

War, Hostilities, Terrorism:

A Pacifist Perspective

Cheyney Ryan

Discussions of terrorism since the events of 9/11 have been part of a

larger discussion about the changing nature of war, a central concern of
which has been what is meant by ‘war’. The immediate occasion was Sir
Michael Howard’s questioning the notion of a ‘War on Terror’—not just
practically but conceptually. Did the open ended, ambiguous enterprise,
thus envisioned, constitute a ‘war’ in any true sense? (Howard 2002;
Mégret 2002).
Replies to Sir Michael have insisted that yes, they are wars—but not of
the traditional type:
The case against calling the War on Terror a ‘war’, writes one author-
ity, rests on the mistaken assumption that wars must have a beginning,
a middle, and an end, that their aims must be clearly stated, or stated
at all, that they must be fought by recognizable combatants, and must
lead to one side or another winning. But today we are dealing with what
another authority calls ‘non-linear war’, to which none of these notions
apply; indeed, the whole distinction between war and peace is blurred
(Gerasimov 2014). Other names proposed are ‘hybrid wars’, ‘postmodern

C. Ryan (*)
Eugene, OR, USA
e-mail: cheyney.ryan@politics.ox.ac.uk

© The Author(s) 2019 11

J. Kustermans et al. (eds.), Pacifism’s Appeal,
Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13427-3_2
12 C. RYAN

wars’, and ‘wars of the third kind’ (Duffield 2001; Gray 2007; Hoffman
2007; Kaldor 1999; Munkler 2005; Smith 2005). If we just scut-
tle archaic notions, if we conceive of war instead as something with no
defined beginning or end, no particular aims, no clear adversaries, and no
decisive outcome—then enterprises like the ‘War on Terror’ fit right in.
And there are historical precedents, it is claimed. One authority finds
them in ancient times, likening them—without irony, as it did not end
well—to the ‘the kind of long struggle with exterior barbarians that char-
acterized the wars of the later Roman Empire’ (Brown 2004). Others
find parallels in more recent experiences of colonialism. Philip Bobbitt
concludes The Shield of Achilles by likening America’s predicament today
to that of ‘Indian Summer’, but with the term’s original, menacing
implications. ‘The early American settlers were often forced to take shel-
ter in stockades to protect themselves from attacks by tribes of Native
Americans.’ They knew such tribes would retire once winter came, but
a break in the approaching winter—a so-called ‘Indian Summer’—could
leave them vulnerable to attack. Likewise the attacks of 9/11, Bobbitt
writes, occurring on a ‘warm, summerlike day’ on America’s East Coast
(where colonists once resided), were both ‘the herald of further savagery
and the call for defenses’, for a war that will have ‘no final victory’, just
the ongoing project of ‘avoiding defeat’.1
If some think they’ve encountered this picture of war before, they
have. ‘War has changed its character’, we have read before. The fighting
‘takes place on vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can
only guess at’. In the past war was something that ‘sooner or later came
to an end, usually in unmistakable victory or defeat’, but now it is ‘lit-
erally continuous’ to the point that the whole distinction between war
and peace ‘has ceased to exist’. ‘Strictly speaking, it has not always been
the same war’, though ‘to trace out who was fighting whom at any given
moment would be literally impossible’. In contrast to the mass wars of
the past, war now involves ‘very small numbers of people, mostly highly
trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties’. But this does
not mean that attitudes are ‘less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous’. On the
contrary, ‘war hysteria is continuous and universal’. Hence, the enemy,
whoever they are at the time, ‘always represent absolute evil, and it fol-
lows that any past or future agreement with them is impossible’.
The author is George Orwell and the book is 1984. Orwell had
launched a spirited defense of Allied bombing against the objections of
pacifist Vera Brittain. But he nevertheless had grim forebodings of where
 2 WAR, HOSTILITIES, TERRORISM: A PACIFIST PERSPECTIVE 13

that type of war could go, and his picture of war has disturbing simi-
larities to features endorsed today. War in modernity has always made a
fetish of newness, most notably in its fascination with new technologies.
The ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ is a recent example of the constant
claims we encounter that the latest technologies will ‘change everything’;
another is the current preoccupation with drones. But here the claims
pertain to the social practice of war. And I reference Orwell to raise the
question that should naturally occur to the pacifist: Are the conflicts of
today truly a qualitative break with the past or are they just the reductio
ad absurdum of the same old thing?
What should pacifism’s perspective on all this be?
Pacifism has meant different things.2 In my own case, my understand-
ing of pacifism is deeply influenced by American thinkers who are the
main ones referenced here. In Sect. 2.1 I say some things about the view
of pacifism that I’ve developed in other writings (Ryan 2015, 2016,
2017a, b).3 Of special importance is the distinction between personal
pacifism and political pacifism, as this chapter adopts the latter perspec-
tive. I turn in Sect. 2.2 to political pacifism’s understanding of and cri-
tique of the ‘war system’. The question, then, is how the current changes
in war, real and imagined, fit within this analysis. Section 2.3 addresses
terrorism as an aspect of the war system. I conclude in Sect. 2.4 with
some remarks on current prospects, and the challenges of opposing war.

2.1   Pacifism(s)—Some Distinctions

Pacifism seems to invite endless debate over what it means to be a pac-
ifist. We’ve seen this elsewhere. There used to be endless debates over,
say, what it meant to be a Marxist, or what it meant to be a feminist.
I’m skeptical of how far such debates take us, but in an essay of this sort,
concerned with ‘the pacifist view X’, it’s necessary to begin with some
words on its meaning.

2.1.1   Personal and Political

As I see it, there are two main strands of western pacifism.
One is personal pacifism. It opposes killing as a personal act, hence it
opposes any social practice involving that act—like war, but also practices
like capital punishment. This pacifism arose with the first Christians, it
assumed a shadowy existence after Augustine and Christian just war theory,
14 C. RYAN

then reemerged with the Protestant Reformation in the so-called left wing
of that movement with groups like Mennonites and later the Quakers. It
almost always has a religious colouring. In the United States, recent figures
have included Dorothy Day and theologian John Howard Yoder.4
The other type is political pacifism. It focuses on social institutions,
and opposes war as a social practice much as many oppose capital pun-
ishment as a social practice. Its objection is not to killing per se but to
the kind of killing that war involves, much as critics of capital punish-
ment do not oppose killing per se but to the kind of killing it involves.
Key twentieth century American figures were Randolph Bourne and the
late Jonathan Schell. The difference is illustrated in their approach to
self-defense. Personal pacifists typically reject killing even in self-defense,
while the political pacifist’s opposition to war as a social system does not
imply questioning killing in self-defense any more than opposition to the
death penalty means questioning killing in self-defense; rather, this posi-
tion insists that war and self-defense have nothing to do with each other.
Personal pacifism approaches things from the bottom up (individual
actions), political pacifism approaches things from the top down (social
institutions).
I stress the question of killing here, but it’s a mistake to construe
killing as pacifism’s only concern, as both types of pacifism have been
equally concerned with power. The sinfulness Christian pacifists see in
the taking of human life is in claiming a kind of power that should be
the sole province of God. The objection of the first Christians to the
Roman Empire was as much an objection to its self-idolatry in claiming
divine power, blurring the distinction between the sacred and the pro-
fane. Early modern Christian pacifists, responding to the rising market
order, equated this with treating human life as a commodity instead of
a gift, as something that could be ‘taken’ like any other piece of prop-
erty. Personal pacifists are wary of power per se; at most, they prefer an
apolitical quiet power. Political pacifists stress the corruption of political
power implicit in employing killing for political ends (much as death
penalty opponents stress the corruption of power implicit in employing
killing for legal ends). Their objection to empire is its exemplifying how
predatory political power results from its centralization/concentration.
Hence its affinities with the anarchist tradition. Both the personal paci-
fist’s concern with idolatry and the political pacifist’s concern with cor-
ruption regard the upshot as a loss of any sense of personal responsibility
in matters of war.
 2 WAR, HOSTILITIES, TERRORISM: A PACIFIST PERSPECTIVE 15

I’ve found that people often equate what I call the personal pacifist
with the ‘true’ pacifist, ‘real’ pacifist, or ‘absolute’ pacifist. This is non-
sense. In the United States, the term pacifist was coined in part to dis-
tinguish political pacifism from the personal sort, which was then termed
‘non-resistance’. So neither can claim priority over the other and both
are ‘absolute’ in their own way. I’ve put this in terms of contrasts but
they are not mutually exclusive. One way to understand the significance
of Martin Luther King Jr., the leading pacifist in American history, is that
he combined both orientations.5

2.1.2   Appraising and Opposing

A second distinction cuts across these types of pacifism and pertains to
other positions like pacifism. It is the distinction between pacifism as a
theoretical position, or what I shall term a way of appraising war, and
pacifism as a practical position, or what I shall term a way of opposing war.
To explain, consider the parallels with another radical position.
In nineteenth century America, ‘abolitionism’ denoted two things.
An abolitionist was someone whose views of slavery were ones of uncon-
ditional condemnation. And an abolitionist was someone whose actions
toward slavery were ones of absolute opposition. One without the other
was not enough. There were people whose attitudes to slavery were ones
of unconditional condemnation, but their reasons were ones that implied
that nothing could be done about it; hence, they were not considered
Abolitionists.
What needs to be stressed, though, is that within this framework there
was room for a great deal of disagreement. Theoretically, Abolitionists
disagreed about why slavery should be unconditionally condemned. As
with pacifism, some did so for religious reasons, others for secular ones.
And practically, they disagreed about how slavery should be absolutely
opposed. Some saw it is a purely personal matter: opposition meant not
engaging in slavery oneself (leading to arguments about what constituted
‘engaging in slavery’). Others saw it as a more political matter, and here
the disagreements were even greater. Some felt that absolute opposition
meant working through existing political channels, for others it meant
activities of education/moral uplift, for others it meant acts of terrorist
violence. Abolitionists often agreed more with non-abolitionists on what
to do, while still agreeing with each other in their unconditional con-
demnation of slavery.
16 C. RYAN

The same schema—and its room for disagreements—can be applied to

pacifism.
Theoretically, a pacifist is someone who unconditionally condemns
war. ‘Unconditional’ means that the pacifist does not distinguish
between good and bad wars, or allow for the occasional exception to the
badness of war, any more than the Abolitionist distinguishes good or bad
slavery, or allows for the occasional exception. Practically, as I understand
it, a pacifist is someone who absolutely opposes war, where ‘absolute’
means a wholehearted commitment to its abolition. The difference here
is evident in the different accusations they invite. The pacifists’ uncondi-
tional condemnation elicits the charge of dogmatism, while their absolute
opposition elicits the charge of fanaticism. The same charges were leve-
led against the Abolitionists and are probably leveled against any radical
movement. Again, I think both are necessary. It’s possible that one’s rea-
sons for condemning war are ones that imply absolutely nothing can be
done about it; if so, one might just as well work in the arms industry if
it pays better, or vote for a warmonger if they’re better on other issues.
This position, it seems to me, would not be pacifism.
But I note some of the disagreements that have occurred within this.
One concerns the theoretical appraisal of war. Pacifists have agreed on
their unconditional condemnation of war while disagreeing about what
counts as ‘war’. The same was true of abolitionists: they unconditionally
condemned slavery but disagreed about what constituted slavery, most
importantly whether prisons were a form of slavery. So too, pacifists have
disagreed about what constitutes war. For example, they have disagreed
whether acts of collective self-defense count as war; that seems strange
to us, accustomed as we are to think that acts of self-defense are par-
adigmatic just wars, but the two were often distinguished (the United
States Constitution distinguishes them in its account of the ‘war power’).
Another was whether the action/arrangements of collective security
count as war. The thinking here is that many pacifists do not oppose a
domestic police force, so why should they oppose a global version of the
same? Both issues warrant more attention to why the pacifist condemns
war, hence whether that condemnation extends to these other matters
(Yoder 2009, pp. 215ff.).
Practically, pacifists have disagreed as much as Abolitionists on the
meaning of absolute opposition, and along very much the same lines. In
both cases, I think it’s hardly surprising there would be such disagree-
ment given the entrenched, all-encompassing character of what is being
 2 WAR, HOSTILITIES, TERRORISM: A PACIFIST PERSPECTIVE 17

opposed. You find the same problem in how to oppose the systematic
degradation of the environment today. I’d also note that people who
support war can also disagree on what it means to do so. When I was a
young man, it was just assumed that supporting a war meant serving in
it yourself, if need be, and paying whatever taxes were needed. A ‘paci-
fist’, then, was someone who refused to do these things.6 Today, in the
United States at least, people see absolutely no connection between sup-
porting a war and serving in it themselves or helping pay for it. So, the
distinction between war-supporters and war-opposers has blurred insofar
as neither believes they should do the fighting themselves.

2.2   Political Pacifism and the War System

I turn to political pacifism, insofar as it provides the framework for
approaching the changes of war in our time.

2.2.1   War Making and War Building

Political pacifism in the United States emerged in response to the
Napoleonic Wars, and as a continuation of civic republican strains in the
county’s founding ideology that championed its special status as a ‘peace
nation’. A major voice was Charles Sumner, who popularized the term
‘war system’. I follow others like Andrew Alexandra and Jonathan Schell
in articulating this notion by referencing Clausewitz, a contemporary of
the first political pacifists who also wrestled with the problem of modern
warfare, especially its penchant to escape all human control (Alexandra
2003; Schell 2004; on Clausewitz, see also Keegan 1994, chapter one)
(Clausewitz speaks of mass warfare in chapter twenty six of On War,
‘Arming the Nation’, as ‘bursting through its old formal limits’, and
suggests this ‘modern intensification of the military element’ raises ‘the
question of war itself’7).
The notion of a ‘war system’ holds that war has two dimensions: it
involves both war making and war building. Analyzing war means ana-
lyzing both and their relation to each other.
War making, at its heart, is the collective enterprise of killing and
dying. It is natural to equate this with battle, ‘the sharp end of war’ as
it were, and in so doing see war as fundamentally an act of violence.
Clausewitz suggests that this is a mistake, albeit a natural one. Violence
(soldiers killing soldiers) is what war most dramatically involves, but
18 C. RYAN

what war is most dramatically about is power—states compelling states.

Clausewitz claims we ignore this by conflating war with battle, and in
so doing fail to grasp war’s political ‘essence’: all politics is about the
exercise of power; war is a collective exercise of power (aimed at dom-
inating the enemy’s will) through collective acts of violence (aimed
at damaging the enemy’s forces). Killing is thus the means compelling
the end: for Clausewitz, the greatest challenge in both the theory and
practice of modern war is keeping these in their proper relation—so that
the means do not become the end, or violence become an end-in-itself
(Clausewitz 1989, esp. pp. 133–148).
Policy theorists call this the ‘Clausewitzian Problem’ (Rose 2010,
chapter one). Political pacifists maintain it cannot be resolved.
War building is the mobilization of human and material resources for
the purpose of war making. Clausewitz holds that success in one is the
key to success in the other, i.e. victory in battle rests on who can bring
the most human and material resources to it (this is ignored if we con-
flate war with battle); we dominate the enemy, or disempower them,
by overpowering them. This too is a political matter, not of asserting
power against another society but of exercising power over one’s own
society. Thus acts of war making by states reflect the organization of war
building within states. This explains war’s impact on social organization
generally. Since Max Weber, political sociologists have argued for the
centrality of war in political development. They’ve shown that the state
prevailed over competing political forms by its superior ability to mobi-
lize the human and material resources for war.8 This was not just a mat-
ter of doing so more effectively but, as an aspect of that, doing so more
responsibly; subsuming war making under sovereign states seemed to
introduce a discipline that earlier times lacked. In Charles Tilly’s phrase,
‘War made the state and the state made war’ (Tilly 1975, p. 144; see
also Downing 1992; Porter 1994; Ertman 1997). And once states arose,
war determined the character of the state: types of states succeeded each
other based on their superior ability at war building. I turn to this shortly
to understand the nation state.
The imperatives of war building explain why the state system is a war
system, one constantly given to conflict due to ends and means again
reversed: war building becomes the aim of war making. Survival in the
state system creates a competition for war resources that compels states
to endless expansion in the name of ‘security’. The impulse to empire
is thus implicit in the state, with its paranoid logic that the bigger the
 2 WAR, HOSTILITIES, TERRORISM: A PACIFIST PERSPECTIVE 19

empire the less secure it feels. This was exacerbated in the late nine-
teenth century with Social Darwinism’s conception of states as organ-
ic-type entities abiding by a ‘survival of the fittest’ ideology. The upshot
was World War I in which all sides conceived themselves as fighting in
‘self-defense’, which they all identified with defending ‘civilization’.
World War II further dramatized the dynamic of such imperialist con-
flicts. Late arrivals to the imperialist system, Germany and Japan, deter-
mined that self-sufficiency in strategic materials could only be achieved
by territorial expansion, given the depression-induced barriers to free
trade (Mann 2012, pp. 423–456).
Let us consider how this explains the dominant form in recent times,
the nation state.

2.2.2   The Nation State

I see the consolidation of the nation state as a matter of both inclusion
and exclusion. Both are involved in the construction of the ‘nation’ as
that which both serves and is served by the state in war.9
On the one hand, the creation of nations involves the homogeniza-
tion of peoples via the constitution of a shared identity. At its heart is
the transformation of ‘subjects’ into ‘citizens’. It is achieved through a
kind of bargain. The first states were constituted by such bargains: sover-
eigns provided security in return for economic resources from landlords
in countryside, in the case of weaker states, or from capitalists in the cities,
in the case of stronger states. Political rights emerged from the claims
extracted by landlords/capitalists for their resources.10 This was reflected
in the different political discourses that emerged with the state. In the
dialectic of cities and sovereigns, for example, the former gave rise to the
‘civil society’ discourses and their ethics of reciprocity, the latter to statist
discourses and their ethics of hierarchy. The upshot was ‘civilized’ society
as modernity came to know it. Tilly puts in terms of a paradox: ‘The cen-
tral paradox of European state formation’, he writes, is how ‘the pursuit
of war and military capacity … as a sort of by-product, led to a civiliani-
zation of government and domestic politics’ (Tilly 1992, p. 206; see also
Tarrow 2015; Tilly 1999).
The nation state basically extended this bargain to the populace as a
whole. Now, the bargain was between the populace who provide their
bodies (in the form of military service) and their resources (in the form
of taxes) in return for the rights of citizenship—political rights initially,
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The time came when Dr. Mateer had a shop equipped to do a
great variety of work; and though not on a large scale, yet big
enough to meet his needs. Already in 1886 in a letter to his brother
William he said: “In order to repair apparatus, and in order to make
many simpler articles, I have fitted up quite a complete workshop,
entirely at my own expense. I have invested in the shop, in tools and
materials quite one thousand dollars. I keep a workman at my own
cost, whom I have trained so that he can do most ordinary kinds of
work. There are a great many small articles we can make here more
cheaply than we can buy them. There are, however, many articles
we cannot make, especially those that involve glass or the use of
special machinery, or special skill.” That shop continued to grow, and
the variety of its output increased. Writing of this, Mrs. Ada Mateer
says:

So soon as possible in addition to the room used for

carpenter work, a side house was devoted to the purposes of
a shop, which grew in completeness as time went on. An
upper story was used for storing finished apparatus, for a
painting, varnishing, and drying room. The lower story was
the shop proper, with well, smithy, a long workroom, private
room for chemicals and so forth. Every conceivable amount of
space in the shop—above, around, and below—was occupied
with materials, on boards hung from above, in cases made of
old boxes lining the walls, and on the floor. The shop
contained not only materials for things that are to be, but
became also a tomb of things that were, but are not, as well
as a hospital for things disabled. What old histories were
unearthed when, after forty years, this shop had to be moved
to Wei Hsien!

Up there it was perpetuated, the main difference consisting in

larger and better quarters, with some improved conveniences. His
wife continues:
 For every machine bought, the market was canvassed by
correspondence, and the best selected. Especially was this
true with reference to any tools or machinery used in the
construction of apparatus,—as machines for turning,
blacksmithing, plumbing, screw-cutting, burnishing,
electroplating, casting, and so forth. His shop was thoroughly
fitted with all appliances for the making of apparatus, or
electric or steam outfitting, so that he was ready to do
anything, from setting up a windmill or water system, or
installing an engine and dynamo, to brazing broken spectacle
frames or repairing a bicycle.

So far as it was practicable he turned over the actual mechanical

labor to Chinese workmen,—a skilled foreman and apprentices
under the foreman’s direction.
Why, though a missionary, did he employ so considerable a part of
his time in this way? Especially at the outset of his missionary career
stern necessity to meet his own needs and those of his associates
drove him to this line of work. Had he been set down in China at
some such place as Shanghai, where foreign articles could be
purchased, very likely his mechanical gifts would have remained
largely dormant. But at Tengchow he helped to make a stove out of
odds and ends, because one was indispensable in order to keep
warm. For the same sort of reason he extracted teeth and made
false sets, cobbled shoes, and acted as master workman of all the
building trades in the erection of the “new home.” Sometimes he was
thus compelled to do things which seemed strange even to him.
When, in 1865, little Katie Mills died, he had to act the part of
undertaker. He said:

It fell to me to make the coffin, which I did as well as I could

from memory. I could not tell the carpenter, and I had to do
the work myself. He did the rough work, and I did the cutting
and fitting. I had to go entirely by my eye, and I found it no
easy matter to get it in every respect in proportion. We
covered it with black velvet outside, and inside with white
 linen. It looked very well when finished, and pleased Mr. and
Mrs. Mills very much. It is a work I never thought of doing.

At one point on the way through Siberia when homeward bound

on his last furlough the train was halted by some defect in the
working of the mechanism of the locomotive. Dr. Mateer, on account
of the delay, got out of his compartment and went to see what was
the matter. He saw that the locomotive was a huge Baldwin, with
whose construction he had familiarized himself when in the United
States on a previous furlough, and he quickly discovered the cause
of the trouble. He could speak no Russian, and the men in charge of
the engine could speak no English, but he managed to show them
the cause of the defective working of the mechanism, and how to
remedy it; and soon the train was again speeding on its way.
The time never came during his long residence in China when a
necessity did not occasionally force itself on him to utilize his
mechanical gifts, and not infrequently on the common utensils of life.
In Wei Hsien he often spent hours directing in such repairs as were
needed for furnaces and the like.
Few of his later and larger achievements in this field could be fairly
regarded as works of necessity, strictly speaking; they rather were
meant to be aids in the great enterprise of evangelizing the Chinese
Empire. He was thoroughly convinced that one of the most powerful
agencies that could be employed for this purpose was the school
and the college. He was equally sure that of all the studies that could
be introduced into the curricula of these institutions, none could be
so effective in opening the way for the gospel as that of the natural
sciences, and especially physics, inclusive of modern mechanical
appliances of its principles. He believed that if bright young men
were educated in that kind of knowledge, and sent out under
Christian influences among their own people, if they were also
converted to Christianity, the outcome must be the dissipation of the
existing blind adherence to the superstitions and ideas of centuries
long remote in the past; and that with this must come the opening
wide of the door for the entrance of Christianity. That was his
forecast; and the present situation in China goes far toward
vindicating the wisdom of it. But to teach effectively the natural
sciences he must have apparatus. The only way he could secure this
was by buying what he could, and by utilizing his own ability to set
this up, and to add as much as possible for the outfit yet needed.
Such was the prime object not only of what in a more limited sense
constituted the apparatus of the school and college, but also of such
larger appliances as the plant for heating and lighting the premises.
These were far more than conveniences that helped to better work;
they were themselves constant exhibitions to the students and to the
people at large of the principles of natural science, and of their value
in the affairs of actual life.
Dr. Mateer utilized his outfit of apparatus and machinery as a
means of reaching others besides the students in his own institution,
with the influence of modern science, thus opening a way into their
minds for the gospel. As to one of his methods of accomplishing this
object Ada gives a graphic account:

At the time when the official examinations were held in

Tengchow, a large number of scholars came to town, hoping
to secure a degree, which should be the first step toward
official preferment. So many of these, having heard the fame
of the foreign machine, came to see and to hear, that Dr.
Mateer used to give up his time to them during the days they
were at leisure. Finally the opportunity to do good in this way
proved so great that a place was provided for the purpose,
which was also much used at the Chinese New Year, when all
the town and countryside give themselves up to recreation.
After the “Mandarin Lessons” began to bring in money, he
devoted the profits to the building of a large museum, with an
entrance on the street. One half was a big audience room, so
arranged that it could be darkened down for stereopticon or
cinematograph exhibitions. But it usually served as an
audience room, where the crowds could sit and listen to
preaching, while the detachment that preceded them was
shown through the inner room by expert assistants. What a
chamber of wonders that inner room proved to them! Here
 was a man, using a single hand to turn a small crank, grinding
corn as fast as a woman or a donkey could do it on the
millstones with much more labor. Here in cases were birds
stuffed, and on the walls pictures of strange animals. Here
was a man turning a large crank that in some mysterious way
made a little iron car overhead first send out sparks, and then
run all around the room on a circular railroad. They wondered
if it would not have been easier for the man to drag the car
around on the ground! There was an oil engine at the end of
the room, that was a wonder, no mistake; and a “shocking”
machine that shocked them indeed; and untold other
wonders. When the tour of the room was finished, the crowd
was let out by another door, their almond eyes quite round,
while a signal given by a steam siren showed it was time for
the next group to go in, and “open-open-eyes,” as they call
sight-seeing.

Occasionally a mandarin of high order came to witness the

marvels. The report of the Shantung Mission for 1909 says that
through the agency of the chapel and museum twelve thousand
people were brought into touch with the gospel during the year; so
the work still continues.
Another good account to which Dr. Mateer turned this peculiar gift
was that of starting industries for native Christians and promoting
self-help among the needy. Now it was a loom for weaving coarse
Chinese linsey or bagging, or a spinning or a knitting machine, that
he ordered; again, he inquired for a roller press to be used for drying
and pressing cotton cloth after dyeing; and more than once he sent
for a lathe for a Chinese blacksmith. In 1896 he interested himself in
procuring an outfit for a flouring mill. He said: “The enterprise of
starting the mill was conceived by Chinese Christians, and they are
going to form a company to raise the money. I do not think that there
is a roller mill in China,—certainly not in north China.... We
personally will not make a cent out of it; but we are interested to get
the Chinese Christians started in an enterprise by which they can
make a living, and introduce improvements into their country.”
 His apprentices went out in many instances master blacksmiths,
machinists, and electricians, and had no difficulty in finding places. A
Chinese general temporarily at Tengchow employed one of these
men as a blacksmith, and his order was so evidently filled according
to western methods that he paid a visit to the wonderful shop of this
wonderful master. The very last man for whom he obtained a place
was his most skilled electrician and his latest foreman. This man
started a shop up at the capital of the province, and for its outfit Dr.
Mateer carried on an extensive correspondence and procured large
invoices of goods. Because of the provincial university established
there under the new educational régime there was imperative need
of such an establishment, and the outlook for success was excellent.
Unfortunately for the proprietor, however, the Chinese officials were
equally alive to the opportunity and were jealous of a rival. So they
managed to compel him to sell out, though they broke the fall a little
for him by retaining him as foreman. It is said that the thought of this
workman’s troubles lay heavy on the heart of Dr. Mateer in his last
illness. It was usually for the poor that he interested himself after this
practical fashion; yet he did not refuse to lend aid to others in
promoting enterprises that would be of general advantage. For a
wealthy Chinaman who owned a coal mine that had been flooded
with water he went to a great deal of trouble in order to put him in the
way of securing a suitable pump. But whether it was for rich or poor
that the opportunity came to render such services, he put aside all
thought of his own ease or name or profit, and did the best in his
power.
He had special satisfaction in the manufacture of electrical
machines, though it was no easy matter to cut and bore the large
glass wheels without breaking them, and to adjust all parts so that
the greatest efficiency was attained. Ada says:

When a machine was perfected, giving an unusually long

spark, he always liked to take me over at night to the shop to
see it perform. I well remember the last time,—at Wei Hsien.
At one end of the shop was the windmill. Here he stopped to
show me a way of equalizing the stroke of the windmill pump
 piston, by hanging on an old kettle of scrap iron. Then he took
me into an inner room, where on one end of a long table
stood the newly finished machine,—a beauty, no mistake.
Having forgotten some necessary key, he took the lantern and
went to get it, leaving me in the dark. I noticed sounds, the
dripping of water in the well; but what was the ticking I heard?
On the return of the lantern I saw the cause,—a number of
clock dials all hung on the wall, and all to be run by one clock
by means of electricity. These were for the college recitation
rooms when they should be finished. Then Calvin made the
new machine do its work. Adjusting carefully the mechanism,
and then measuring the spark, he exclaimed with boyish glee,
“There, isn’t that a beauty!”

Dr. W. A. P. Martin, of Peking, related in the “Chinese Recorder” of

December, 1908, this incident as to Dr. Mateer: “It was once my
privilege to spend part of a vacation in his hospitable home at
Tengchow. I found him at work constructing scientific apparatus with
his own hands and wrestling with a mathematical problem which he
had met in an American magazine. When I solved the problem, he
evinced a lively satisfaction, as if it were the one thing required to
cement our friendship.” The problem was to find the diameter of an
auger, which, passing through the center of a sphere, will bore away
just one half of its bulk. It is easy to see that to a man of that sort his
work and the scientific and practical problems constantly arising in
connection with the making of apparatus and the adjustment of
machinery must have been in themselves a rich source of pleasure,
though he never allowed himself to be so fascinated by his shop as
to break in on what he conceived to be his higher work. Speaking of
his last years, Ada says: “He would go out wearied with the baffling
search for a way of expressing clearly in Chinese a thought none too
clear in the original Greek, his forehead grooved with the harrows of
thought. He would come back from the shop an hour later, with well-
begrimed hands, a new spot on his long Chinese gown, a fresher
pink in his cheeks, a brighter sparkle in his eyes, and his lips parted
with a smile. Then, having washed, he would immediately set himself
again to the work of revision.”
 He loved also to share this joy, so far as it could be done, with
others. At the Synod of China with his apparatus he gave several
exhibitions that were greatly appreciated. At Wei Hsien he rendered
similar services in the high schools, and at Chefoo in the school for
the children of missionaries. The Centennial Fourth of July, being
quite an exceptional occasion, he celebrated not with ordinary
gunpowder, but by setting off a considerable quantity of detonating
chemicals. In the early days at Tengchow a home-made electric fly
whisk whirled above the dining table, and a little pneumatic fountain
playing in a bell glass rendered the room and the meals additionally
pleasant to the family and to the guests. Ada writes:

But the thing that most of us will remember longest is an

illustrated lecture on electricity delivered to the college in Wei
Hsien, and afterward to the foreigners there. As we sat in a
darkened room in the college watching the long sparks of fire,
the twisting circles of many-colored light, half illuminating a
tall, white-bearded figure in a long black gown, he seemed to
us like some old magician, learned in the black arts, now
become bright arts, invoking to his aid his attendant spirits.
Nor was the enchantment diminished when afterward, more
wonderful than a palmister, he showed us by the x-rays the
bones of our hands. A few weeks later one of the ladies of the
compound gave an evening entertainment in which each one
in the station was hit off in some bright way, and we were to
guess the name. One number of the programme was this: A
black-robed figure with cotton beard appeared, leading a
youth whom he seated in a chair. Then the venerable
personage proceeds to examine the head of the stripling with
a stereoscope covered with black cloth, supposed to be a
fluoroscope, while an alarm clock in a tin pail near by supplies
the crackling of electricity. He gives a careful examination,
shakes his head, and pronounces the verdict in one word,
“Empty.” In explanation of the tableau it only needs to be said
that between the exhibition and the entertainment Dr. Mateer
had given the young men of the station their examination in
the language.
 XIII
THE MANDARIN VERSION

“I am mortgaged to the Bible revision work.... It cost me a great effort to

engage in it, but it will probably be the most important work of my
life.”—letter to secretary brown, June 13, 1896.

To tell this part of the story of Dr. Mateer’s life satisfactorily, I must
begin with the first general missionary conference, held at Shanghai
in May, 1877. For two years previous he had served on a committee
to prepare the way for the meeting, and in this capacity he had
rendered much valuable assistance. At that conference he read a
paper in which he elaborately discussed the subject of “The Relation
of Protestant Missions to Education.” The meeting was regarded as
successful, and a second was called, to assemble at Shanghai, in
May, 1890. It was at this conference that the movement for a revision
of the Bible in Chinese took actual measures toward realization.
For the sake of any readers not well informed as to the Chinese
language, a few preliminary statements concerning it may be
desirable here. In a very broad and general sense it may be said that
as to elements, one tongue prevails throughout China proper; but
that there is also much important variation in this general tongue.
First of all, it needs lo be noted that the language takes on two
principal forms,—the classic, or Wen-li, and the spoken, or
Mandarin. The classic has come down through the centuries from
the times of Confucius and Mencius, and remains comparatively the
same as it is found in the writings of those sages. This is accepted
as the model for all writing; and for that reason Chinese students
have been required to spend the greater part of their time in
memorizing those ancient books, so that they might not only absorb
their teaching, but also especially that they might be able to
reproduce their style. The classic Chinese is stilted and so
condensed that in comparison with it a telegram would seem diffuse;
and though many of the characters are the same as those used in
writing the spoken language, yet the meaning and often the sound of
characters is so different that an illiterate person would not
understand it on hearing it read. The spoken language, on the other
hand, may be compared with English as to its use. Good English is
very much the same throughout the countries where it is the
vernacular, and though it takes on local dialects, it remains
everywhere intelligible. So, broadly speaking, is it also as to the
spoken Chinese in a large part of the empire. From the Yangtse up
into Manchuria, though the pronunciations differ very much, the
colloquial if put into writing is understood. In other words, with
differences of dialect and pronunciation it is the speech of perhaps
three hundred millions of people. The regions excepted lie along the
coast from Shanghai down, and inland south of the Yangtse, where
the distinct tongues are numerous and are largely unintelligible
except in their own localities.
It has been the rule in China that a mandarin must not be a native
of the province where he holds office; and, of course, it is essential
that he should be acquainted with the speech which constitutes the
lingua franca. Perhaps for this reason it is called Mandarin. But down
to the time when missionary publications rendered it common in
print, it was not employed in that mode. All books, business or
government documents, the one newspaper of the country, which
was the court gazette, and all letters were in the higher or, as it is
called, the Wen-li form, the only exception being some novels, and
even these were streaked with Wen-li. This, however, ran through
gradations,—from the highest, which is so condensed and so bristles
with erudite allusions that only a trained scholar can understand it,
down to a modification which is so easy that with a slight alteration of
particles it is almost the same as the Mandarin.
During the long period of the nineteenth century preceding the
meeting of the second general missionary conference, a number of
translations of the Scriptures, some of them of the whole, and some
of parts, had been made, and had come more or less into use. The
men who did this pioneer work deserve to be held in perpetual
esteem, especially in view of the difficulties under which they
labored. Among the missionaries who sat in that conference there
was no disposition to withhold this honor, or to disparage the value of
these early translations; but there was so widely prevalent among
them and their associates at that time on the field a conviction that
no existing version was satisfactory, that they recognized it as a duty
to take up the subject, and to initiate steps looking to the production
of a better. An informal consultation as to this was held by a few
men, a couple of days before the conference assembled; but
inasmuch as Dr. Mateer had not been invited, he did not attend.
Another consultation was held the following day, and because of his
great interest in the subject of a Bible revision, he attended without
an invitation. The views expressed clearly indicated that there was a
general agreement that a revision was desirable, but it also was
made very plain that beyond this there was a wide divergence of
opinion. We will allow one of his letters to a representative of the
American Bible Society, under date of May 26, 1890, to tell the next
step in this great undertaking:

As I walked home from the meeting, and revolved in my

mind the difficulty of the situation, the idea of an executive
committee, to whom the whole work should be intrusted,
came across my mind. When I reached my room I sat down,
and in a few minutes and without consultation with anyone,
wrote out the plan, which without essential modification was
subsequently adopted. It seemed to strike all parties very
favorably. On the second day of the conference two large,
representative committees were appointed by the conference,
one on Mandarin and one on Wen-li. I was a member of both
these committees. Each committee had a number of
meetings, in which the subject was freely and fully discussed
in all its bearings. It was evident that there was a general
desire for a version in simple Wen-li, and, the difficulties being
less in regard to the work already done, a conclusion was first
reached in regard to this version. In Mandarin the difficulties
were greater.
 An agreement, however, was reached. The version in the higher
classic style then gave the most trouble, but a satisfactory basis for
this also was agreed upon; and the reports as to all three versions
were adopted unanimously by the conference. In the same letter he
says: “I worked hard for these results, and felt no small satisfaction
in seeing such perfect unanimity in the adoption of the plan
proposed. I have never done anything in which I felt more the
guiding hand of God than in drawing up and carrying through this
plan.”
The selection of translators for each of the projected new versions
was handed over respectively to executive committees; and Dr.
Mateer was appointed on that having charge of the Mandarin, and
made chairman of it. He heard that he was talked of as one of the
revisers for that version, but as yet he had not decided what was his
duty, if chosen. It will again be best here to take up from one of his
letters the thread of the narrative. Under date of December 13, 1890,
he writes to Dr. Nevius:

I can truly say that before I went to the conference I never

even dreamed of what has come to pass. It never occurred to
me, before the conference, that I should take any prominent
part in the matter of Bible translation. I felt that education was
the only field in which I should come to the front. I was never
in my life so providentially led as I was in this matter. I was
selected chairman of the Mandarin Executive Committee and
have been pushing the getting of translators. The first few
months were spent in corresponding and comparing notes as
to men. We took a ballot recently, which resulted in the
election of five, ... I being the only one who received a
unanimous vote. We are now voting for the others, to make
up the seven.... My book of “Mandarin Lessons” has no doubt
brought me forward, and its preparation has in a measure
fitted me for the work. My personal preferences are against
the work of translation, and I would fain decline it, but I don’t
see how I can in view of the circumstances. I feel my
incompetency, especially in Greek and Hebrew, and you may
 be sure I am very loath to give up the educational and literary
work on my hands. Much of it is half finished. But if the
Mandarin Bible is to be made, some one must do it;
moreover, the men who do it must have the confidence of the
missionary body; otherwise it will be a failure. As it is,
circumstances have led me to the position, and the strong
opinion of the men on the committee, and of others, leads me
to feel that I cannot lightly refuse.

In November, 1891, the revisers met at Shanghai. Dr. Mateer, in a

letter written in the following January, said:

The scheme for the revision of the Chinese Bible set on

foot by the conference is now fairly organized, and approved
by the three great Bible societies. The work of pushing the
organization has fallen largely on me, and I feel no small
sense of relief now that it is successfully accomplished.
Contrary to my own desire, I am compelled to lake a share as
one of the revisers in Mandarin; not that I do not relish the
work, but because it will of necessity interfere with many of
my cherished plans. We had a meeting of all the revisers of
the three versions, and it was a fairly harmonious and an
altogether successful meeting. A great work is before us
which I trust we may, in the good providence of God, be
enabled to accomplish.

The interval of about a year and a half between the general

conference and the organization just mentioned was required
because of the difficulty of selecting and securing the translators.
These for the Mandarin version, as that body was originally
constituted, consisted of Henry Blodgett, George Owen, Chauncey
Goodrich, J. R. Hykes, Thomas Bramfitt, J. L. Nevius and C. W.
Mateer. During the years in which this work was continued there
were in the membership so many changes caused by death, removal
and other causes, that Dr. Goodrich and Dr. Mateer alone continued
from the beginning until the translation of the New Testament, the
part of the Bible first revised, was tentatively completed. Mr. Baller of
the China Inland Mission stands next in length of service, having
joined the committee in 1900. Dr. Mateer in the work of revision had
the assistance of two Chinese Christians whose services were so
large and valuable that they deserve more than a passing mention
here. In a recent letter Dr. Goodrich pays them the following just
tribute:

Dr. Mateer, in the work of rendering the Scriptures into a

universal Mandarin colloquial, had two exceptionally fine
teachers. The first was Mr. Tsou Li Wen, an ordained pastor,
who left his parish to engage in this work. Mr. Tsou was
trained by Dr. Mateer in his college, receiving his theological
training under Drs. Nevius, Mateer and others. He was a man
of beautiful spirit, discriminating mind, and a fine sense of
language. He was also a man of indomitable perseverance.
After a strenuous day’s work of eight hours or more, he would
often toil by himself far into the night, seeking for some
phrase or phrases which expressed more exactly or more
beautifully the meaning of the original. And before the final
review, both he and my own lamented teacher (Chang Hsi
Hsin) would bestow the greatest pains, in the hours when
they should have been sleeping, in a careful inspection of the
work. Thus did Mr. Tsou toil, while separated from his family
for long periods of time; his work on Bible revision being as
truly a labor of love as that of any member of the committee.
But alas! Mr. Tsou’s life burned out all too soon in his
exhausting labors. But how I should like to see his crown, and
his shining face!
Happily for the work, Dr. Mateer had another scholar,
trained also in his school, Mr. Wang Yuan Teh, a young man
of keen, incisive, logical mind, who had read all the best
books in the Mandarin colloquial. Mr. Wang was quick to see
any fault in the structure of a sentence, and insistent on its
being put right. He also worked most faithfully in this
translation, refusing offers which came to him of a salary
 several times the amount he received. I think he was held,
partly by Dr. Mateer’s personality, which drew him strongly,
and partly by his own love for the work itself. When the chariot
of fire came for Dr. Mateer, he left us, much to our regret and
loss.
The work of these two men has entered largely into the
present translation of the New Testament, and the influence of
their work, as of Dr. Mateer’s, abides, and will continue to be
felt, till the great work of rendering the Bible into a universal
Mandarin is finished.

Dr. Mateer himself, in the preface to his “Mandarin Lessons,”

makes acknowledgment of the valuable services rendered in the
preparation of that work by Tsou Li Wen, and also by his own wife.
The Mandarin Committee, at the meeting in 1891, after
organization, proceeded to divide up the books of the New
Testament among themselves for work, and adopted a plan of
procedure. Each man was first carefully to revise or translate his own
portion; and then to send it around to the others, who were to go
over it, and write their suggestions of emendations, each in a column
parallel to the proposed text. Next, the original translator was to take
these emendations, and with their help was to prepare a text in
Mandarin for submission to the entire committee. Broadly speaking,
this was the method pursued to the end, though with some
modifications compelled or suggested by experience. It was hoped
that comparatively rapid progress would be made; but in reality the
committee did not come together again until September, 1898; and
even then, only the Acts of the Apostles was ready for general
revision. For this delay there were various causes, such as the death
of Dr. Nevius and the resignation of others, and the absence of Dr.
Mateer on furlough home; but the chief cause was that every
member was burdened with so much other work that only a fraction
of his time could be given to this duty. Dr. Mateer, for example, found
himself loaded down with other literary and missionary labors. At the
meeting held at Tengchow, in 1898, he was elected chairman of the
committee. This was an honor, but it also carried with it peculiar
duties which materially added to his burden. The committee could
muster only five members for that sitting, but they proceeded with
their work, and at the end of two months and a half they finished the
book of Acts; and then they separated.

MANDARIN REVISION COMMITTEE AT WORK

DR. S. LEWIS DR. DR. MATEER M. BALLER

(American Methodist GOODRICH (Presbyterian) (China Inland
Episcopal) (Congregational) Mission)

That meeting by actual experience brought out distinctly not only

the difficulties of necessity arising from the translation of particular
books of the Bible, and indeed of every verse; but also others of a
more general character, some of which had previously been more or
less clearly seen. Should the new version take as its basis one or
more of the translations already in existence; or should it go back
straight to the original Greek, and use the existing translations
merely as helps? In any case, constant reference to the original was
a necessity. For this, which of the published texts should be
accepted as the standard? The meeting also disclosed a wide
divergence of opinion as to the style of Mandarin that ought to be
employed. On that subject in 1900, Dr. Mateer expressed himself
fully and strongly, in an article published in the “Chinese Recorder.”
He said:

The Mandarin Bible, in order to fulfill its purpose, should be

such as can be readily understood by all when heard as read
aloud by another. The fundamental distinction between Wen-li
and Mandarin is that the former is addressed to the eye, the
latter to the ear. In all Protestant churches the reading of the
Scriptures has, from the first, constituted an important part of
public worship. In order that this reading may serve the
purpose intended, the Scripture must be so translated as to
be intelligible to the common people. Only thus will they hear
it, as they did its Author, “gladly.” It is not enough that those
who know “characters” should be able to read it intelligently,
but rather that those who do not know “characters,” and who
in fact constitute by far the greater part of the Chinese people,
should be able to understand it when it is read to them. Here
then is the standard to be aimed at,—a version that
represents the Chinese language as it is spoken, and
addresses itself to the ear rather than to the eye.

He summarized the chief characteristics of the proper style thus:

that words should be employed which the people who commonly use
Mandarin can understand; that sentences should conform to the
model of the spoken language; and, concerning both of these
requisites, that such care should be taken as to brevity, the order of
words and clauses, the connective particles, and the evident
movement of thought as expressed, that the Chinese would
recognize in it a people’s book; and yet one that is free from
undignified colloquialisms and localisms. All this he held up as an
ideal, not likely to be fully realized by any set of translators, but if
distinctly aimed at, more sure to be nearly approached. Toward the
close of the work on the Mandarin version still another question of a
general nature arose. Throughout most of their labors the committee
had before them the revised easy Wen-li translation, and for a part of
the time they also had the revised classic Wen-li Bible. Ought the
three revised Chinese versions to be harmonized, so as to eliminate
all variations? That, of course, would be ideal. On this question the
report of the Mandarin Committee, which was as to substance
prepared by the chairman, took the negative. It said:

The differences are not great, and where they exist, the
versions will serve Chinese students as a sort of commentary.
There are a multitude of questions in Biblical interpretation
which no translation can settle once for all. Moreover, ninety-
nine out of a hundred of those who use the Mandarin will
never look at any other translation. Two versions in perfect
accord seem like a fine product, but it is difficult of realization.
An attempt at reconciling the present versions would develop
many difficulties. A Mandarin sentence especially is not easy
to tamper with. The change of a single word would often
dislocate a long sentence, and necessitate retranslation and
adjustment to the context.

The Mandarin committee of translators continued their tentative

revision of the New Testament until late in 1906, a period of fifteen
years, counting from the date of their first meeting for organization
and assignment of specific duties. They held eight different sessions,
being almost one each year after they were ready with actual work;
and none of the sessions were shorter than two and a half months,
and one of them stretched out to six months. They assembled at
Tengchow, near Peking, at Shanghai, and most frequently at Chefoo.
In the final report is the record: “The chairman can say for himself
that he has given the equivalent of about seven years all-day labor to
this work. He was present at every meeting, and first and last missed
but one day’s session.” Each of the meetings took on distinctive
incidental associations. The third was held at Shanghai, and from
December, 1900, ran over some months into 1901. At that time, on
account of the Boxer uprising, missionaries were temporarily there
as refugees from all the provinces directly concerned in the version.
The sittings were in a small upper room in the Union Church, which
came to be called “the Jerusalem Chamber,” and visitors were many.
They saw two rows of men, one on each side of a long table, yellow
faces being sandwiched alternately with white, as each translator
had, as usual in this work, his Chinese assistant at his side. Often
the discussions were carried on in Mandarin, so that these assistants
might be able to understand and pass their opinion. Incidentally it
may be noted that besides his work on the revision, Dr. Mateer often
met with the refugee missionaries during this period and greatly
gratified them by participating in the discussion of practical problems.
After the Mateers returned from their furlough, the sessions were
all held at Chefoo, first in one of the rooms of the China Inland
Mission Sanitarium, and later in a large upper room in the Missionary
Home, overlooking the bay. Usually at the commencement of their
meetings they sat together for three hours in the morning, and
reserved the rest of the day for such private study as they wished to
make; but as the time wore on they would increase the sittings to as
many hours also in the afternoon, and crowd the private review into
such odd moments as were left. To anyone, these protracted labors
on such a work must have become exceedingly tedious and almost
irksome; but to no one was it more so than to Dr. Mateer. He knew
Mandarin almost as if it had been his native tongue; but the
Mandarin which he knew had often to be modified and expressions
adjusted, so that a Scripture written in it would suit other regions of
China as well as those with which he was familiar. In writing his
“Mandarin Lessons” and in preparing his educational books he had
only to ascertain to the best of his ability how to express his ideas in
Chinese, and that was the end of the search; but here he had to do
his best, and then submit his product to the opinion of others, and
often with the result of changes which did not commend themselves
to his preference. Yet, on his return home from the sittings he would
say: “I ought not to complain. I get my way oftener than any other
man does. Only I cannot help thinking of the work I have laid aside
unfinished in order to do this.” After each meeting the year’s work
was printed, marked “Tentative Edition,” and with a slip inviting
criticism was sent to the missionaries in north China and Manchuria.
These criticisms were all to be canvassed before the edition could be
printed that was to be presented to the Centenary Conference, to
which they were to report.
The final meeting for the tentative revision of the New Testament
lasted for more than five months, and the work was pushed with
even more than the usual vigor. The Centenary Missionary
Conference for China was only a year ahead when they began. After
the conference the revision was to run the gauntlet of criticisms, and
these were to be canvassed; and thus at last the revision was to take
its permanent form. Mrs. Mateer gives the following graphic account
of one of the closing incidents of that session.

Passage had already been engaged for the Goodrich family

on a steamer sailing north. The baggage was all carried
down, the family all waited on the upper veranda, with hats
on, and the Doctor’s hat was ready for him to seize as soon
as he should get out of the meeting. The “rickshaw” men were
waiting, ready to run with their loads. But still no sound of
approaching feet! Finally, as it got dangerously near the hour
of sailing, Mrs. Goodrich said, “I must go and hurry them up.”
So she marched boldly down the hall, listened a minute at the
door, and came back with her fingers on her lips. “Those dear
men are praying,” she whispered; and tears filled our eyes as
our hearts silently joined in the prayer. Of course, every
morning session was opened with prayer; but this was the
consummation of all these years of toil, the offering of the
finished work at the altar.

Although the committee completed their revision at that session,

so far as this was possible until the conference should meet and
approve or disapprove it, there was very considerable work of a
tedious nature left to Dr. Mateer to perform. The finishing touches yet
to be put upon portions of the version were not a few; but the thing
that required of him the most protracted and delicate attention was
the punctuation. For this he introduced a new system which seemed
to him to be best for the Chinese language, and which can be
estimated fairly only by a scholar in that tongue. To him also as