This paper is a response to Guotong Li''s article in which she argues that Li Zhi(1527-1602),He Qiaoyuan(1557-1633),and Li Guangjin(1549-1623)constituted a fellowship exemplified by their openness toward Islam and endorsement of maritime trade.Adopting a socio-intellectual approach,this paper rebukes the claim that the three scholars can be considered a fellowship.It demonstrates that their varying attitudes toward Buddhism and Islam should be considered in relation to their disparate intellectual dispositions.The paper also calls for a more prudent usage of the term"fellowship,"and examines the Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism revival in the mid-Ming,increasingly the dominant intellectual current in Quanzhou.Through an exploration of how Quanzhou Cheng-Zhu scholars participated in overseas trade as well as their literary commemoration of merchants,the paper supplements Guotong Li''s study of the city''s maritime trade with evidence broader than these three scholars and their Muslim connections.Together,it subscribes to the age-old Confusion tenet of"harmony with diversified views"(he er butong),thereby presenting a nuanced picture of Quanzhou.
展开▼
机译：本文是对国都李的文章的回应，她认为李志（1527-1602），何乔源（1557-1633），李光金（1549-1623）构成了对伊斯兰教的开放的奖学金和海上交易的认可。本文斥责了一个社会智力方法，斥责三个学者可以将三位学者视为兄弟素质。它表明，他们应该与他们的不同智力置位进行各种对佛教和伊斯兰教的态度。纸张还要求对“奖学金”一词进行更加谨慎的使用，并在中明的程竺新儒家革命中审查了泉州的主导知识分子。探索泉州程朱学者如何参加在海外贸易以及商人的文学纪念中，纸币补充李丽“对城市的海事贸易研究比这三个学者和他们的穆斯林连接Ons.Together，它订阅了“与多元化观点的和谐”（He Er Tapong）的古老混淆宗旨，从而展示了泉州的细微景观。
展开▼
