Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768 (review)

Reviews 149 worth arguing in the context ofsuch an importantbook. Like a Knifeis a most enjoyable, balanced, and enlightening treatment ofan exciting and important part ofcontemporary Chinese culture. Jan W. Walls Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Philip A. Kuhn. Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of1768 Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. xi, 299 pp. $29.95. copyright1994 by University of Hawai'i Press The subject of Souhtealers is an old and familiar tale, a tale probably as ancient as the beginnings ofhuman history and certainly as modern as our own times. Reenacted from time to time, its motifis essentially immutable and universal, while its plot and embellishments vary greatly from culture to culture and epoch to epoch . During the spring of 1768 in Kiangnan, in the lower Yangtze region, mason Wu received a commission from a local official to restore a ruined bridge. Aware that craftsmen—carpenters, sword smiths, brewers, and the like—had access to occult arts, peasant Shen approached the mason with a proposition ofmutual benefit to himselfand the bridge builder. He would provide Wu with a slip ofpaper on which he had written the names ofhis nephews who had been tormenting him. Wielding his sorcery, the mason would then affix the paper to his pilings, stealing the nephews' souls to strengthen his span and effecting their deaths to relieve Shen's distress. Wu not only prudently rejected this improper proposal, but turned the peasant into the authorities, who had him scourged as punishment for his transgression. This spark ignited a small brush fire ofhysteria. When news ofthe affair spread, the level of anxiety in local communities rose and a rash of soul stealing episodes broke out, not only in Kiangnan, but also in regions to the north and west. As the panic spread, the perception ofthe menace in the popular imagination changed. Attention shifted from artisans as perpetrators ofthe evil to beggars and monks, and from the written word as the instrument for seizing souls to cephalic hair. The emergence of the notion that sorcerers could exert control over souls and injure people by acquiring cuttings oftheir hair was a key turn ofevents in the unfolding dramabecause it caught the attention ofthe throne. After subjugating China and establishing the Qing dynasty in the previous century, the Manchus imposed the queue, their own hair style, on Chinese males as a badge ofsubjugation. Shaving it offbecame a symbol ofresistance to or rebellion against the dynasty and consequently constituted a threat to the regime. Soul stealing and other forms ofblack magic were crimes as defined 150 China Review International: Vol. ?, No. ?, Spring 1994 in ancient Chinese legal codes, but queue clipping was a violation of Qing regulations as mandated by imperial decree. Hence, when Emperor Hongli, more sensitive than most ofhis regal counterparts to menaces that might undermine the authority of the dynasty, learned of this development in the summer, he launched a national witch-hunt, goading provincial officials into ever higher degrees of diligence in efforts to root out evildoers suspected ofpracticing black arts and conspiring against the state. Soulstealersis the account ofthe sorcery scare and subsequent witch-hunt. On the basis of documents from the imperial archives in Beijing that have only recently been open to Western researchers, Professor Kuhn has reconstructed the course ofthe panic and the inquisition from its inception on March 26 to its conclusion on November 19. He meticulously recounts and analyzes case after case of accused sorcerers brought before the bar for interrogation and judgment. His examination ofthese processes provides a rare and invaluable glimpse into the nature of rural folk beliefs, the traditional legal machinery in action, the correspondence between the emperor and provincial servitors, the political behavior oflocal officials, the tensions between the conquerors and the conquered, Qing autocracy , and, above all, Hongli's personal, somewhat paranoiac, reactions to the crisis for which he was largely responsible. This study is at its best when it deals with the manner in which the political institutions of the Qing, the emperor and bureaucracy, managed the crisis and is a substantial contribution to our understanding of China's political culture during that dynasty. The same cannot be said, however...