Someone over at 'Emptyflower' previously asked the same question (minus the current poll) and that thread turned out to be popular for a brief time. So I figured that I would try it out here as well to see what you guys think. This is very similar to a thread I started a while back concerning the origins of Eagle Claw boxing, but since its not style specific, it deserves its own independent thread.
Please vote above and then explain your answer in detail below. I will vote and give my reasons later after hearing your ideas.
Full Version: Did Yue Fei contribute to TCMA?
China History Forum, Chinese History Forum > Chinese History Topics > Chinese Art of War > Chinese Martial Arts
EXPLANATIONS FOR ALL THREE QUESTIONS
#1 - Do you believe he actually created all of the styles attributed to him (mainly Xingyi and Eagle Claw, but others as well)?
This is pretty much self-explanatory because most people believe he did create all of the styles attributed to him based on what they've read in martial arts books or heard from word-of-mouth.
#2 - Do you believe the weapons drills that he specifically taught to his soldiers later influenced empty hand techniques used in TCMA?
Some people claim that Yue Fei personally taught innovative spear techniques to his soldiers and that these thrusting motions where later adapted to empty-hand techniques (i.e. the punching of Xinyi or Xingyi boxing). Someone on Emptyflower stated that there are empty-hand techniques for practicing spear thrusts inside a small room where it is not possible to wield the weapon in such a confined place or for when your weapon is not at hands reach. So, in short, they believed he contributed this way.
#3 - Do you believe that Yue Fei did not contribute a single thing and that it was only his legend that inspired others to attribute styles to him?
Yue's official and family biographies do not mention him training in any form of boxing, just weapons. Based on this, some people believe that it was only Yue Fei's patriotic image that inspired Ming rebels to attribute their styles to him because he fought the Jin, ancestors of the Qing Dynasty Manchus.
I am especially interested in your comments on how each question (current of thought) is right or wrong. For example, in regards to #3, someone on Emptyflower stated the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. They went on to mention that famous Ming General Qi Jiguang (戚繼光 1528-1587) actually created his own form of Chinese boxing, but that it is not mentioned in his own biography. However, it is mentioned in his own verified writings (See New Book on Effective Military Techniques 紀效新書).
#1 - Do you believe he actually created all of the styles attributed to him (mainly Xingyi and Eagle Claw, but others as well)?
This is pretty much self-explanatory because most people believe he did create all of the styles attributed to him based on what they've read in martial arts books or heard from word-of-mouth.
#2 - Do you believe the weapons drills that he specifically taught to his soldiers later influenced empty hand techniques used in TCMA?
Some people claim that Yue Fei personally taught innovative spear techniques to his soldiers and that these thrusting motions where later adapted to empty-hand techniques (i.e. the punching of Xinyi or Xingyi boxing). Someone on Emptyflower stated that there are empty-hand techniques for practicing spear thrusts inside a small room where it is not possible to wield the weapon in such a confined place or for when your weapon is not at hands reach. So, in short, they believed he contributed this way.
#3 - Do you believe that Yue Fei did not contribute a single thing and that it was only his legend that inspired others to attribute styles to him?
Yue's official and family biographies do not mention him training in any form of boxing, just weapons. Based on this, some people believe that it was only Yue Fei's patriotic image that inspired Ming rebels to attribute their styles to him because he fought the Jin, ancestors of the Qing Dynasty Manchus.
I am especially interested in your comments on how each question (current of thought) is right or wrong. For example, in regards to #3, someone on Emptyflower stated the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. They went on to mention that famous Ming General Qi Jiguang (戚繼光 1528-1587) actually created his own form of Chinese boxing, but that it is not mentioned in his own biography. However, it is mentioned in his own verified writings (See New Book on Effective Military Techniques 紀效新書).
it's hard to find any evidence to support my choice. i just follow my instinct.
I finally voted and here are my answers and (long winded) reasons:
#1 – No
I've found that much of the Yue Fei material presented in martial arts books is based on ‘episodes’ from Yue's fictional biography (which is explained further below) or are just plain made up stories. One good example of such misinformation is in a book by Eagle Claw Grandmaster Leung Shum. The book states:
Zhou Tong was never a Shaolin monk and he never took Yue to the Shaolin monastery. He was historically hired to teach Yue Fei military archery, which he taught to him (and other children) in the Yue Family village. (Li, Hanhuan. Yue Wumu Nianpu, 1947) For further reasons connected to this, See #3 as well.
#2 - No
My biggest problem with this theory is that Yue Fei’s official and family records do not mention him teaching his soldiers spear techniques, only the brand of archery he learned from Zhou Tong. He is historically known as a powerful archer. Despite this, people argue that Yue Fei had to have taught his men spear techniques because it was apart of contemporary military training. I do not doubt Yue Fei taught his men spear techniques, but don’t think the techniques were any different that that taught by his peers. Most importantly, I think the idea that Yue Fei was known primarily as a spearplayer and that he taught his soldiers "innovative spear techniques" was derived solely from The Story of Yue Fei (Shuo Yue Quan Zhuan), the general's 18th century fictional biography. This image was then carried on by circulation of the novel over the centuries, storytellers, and various boxing manuals like the Preface to Six Harmonies Boxing (Liu He Quan Xu).
The Story of Yue Fei was written during the Qing Dynasty and served partly as a political statement against the Manchu occupation of China. (Degkwitz, Jochen. Yue Fei und sein Mythos, 1983) The Manchus claimed to be descendants of the Jurchen tribes, who Yue Fei struggled against. In the novel, Yue Fei wanders behind a Buddhist temple and wrestles a monstrous snake that magically turns into the spear that he uses for the rest of his youth and military career. He wields this spear in battles against princes, bandits, and barbarians and stories of his spear prowess spread far and wide. Years later, Jin Wushu, the Jurchen commander, attacks Chinese armies with primitive tanks comprised of Chain-linked horses. Yue eventually thinks of a way of defeating the tanks and has one of his sworn-brothers train the troops in the “hooked-spear” (that was made famous by the fictional Water Margin bandit Xu Ning), which he had himself learned from Zhou Tong. The soldiers then use these spears to immobilize the tanks by cutting the legs out from underneath the horses.
The area of the Preface related to this subject is described in the book Orthodox Xingyi Quan by Pei Xirong and Li Ying’ang:
I personally believe the Preface's claim that Zhou Tong taught Yue Fei the spear comes from The Story of Yue Fei as well. In the novel, Zhou is Yue's only military tutor and teaches the boy all of the 18 weapons of war (with focus on the bow and spear), but the general historically had two teachers. Chen Guang was the person who actually taught Yue Fei spearplay.
I hate to regurgitate Jarek Szymanski’s site (as one my friends would say), but he has this to say about Dai Longbang’s book:
#3 - Yes
As I previously stated, none of Yue’s official or family biographies mention his military tutors teaching him any form of “boxing”. Someone on Emptyflower stated the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. They went on to mention that famous Ming General Qi Jiguang (戚繼光 1528-1587) actually created his own form of Chinese boxing, but that it is not mentioned in his own biography. However, it is mentioned in his own verified writings (See New Book on Effective Military Techniques 紀效新書).
Like General Qi, Yue Fei has a martial arts document attributed to him, which is known as Yue Wumu’s Ten Essential Xingyi Theses (I have seen it with 9 instead of 10 before). It describes ten fundamental, albeit esoteric points to mastering the art of Xingyi. However, it was not apart of the general’s historical writings collected by his grandson, Yue Ke, during the 13th century. I believe it has been recognized as a modern work just like the Preface mentioned above. Plus, there are several modern martial arts historians that claim there is no traceable historical link between Yue Fei and Xingyi. So, you can disregard this document in regards to arguing against #3. There are no extant martial arts documents actually pinned by Yue Fei.
One must keep in mind that after Yue’s death, he became the epitome of patriotism. One research paper about him says the following concerning his growing popularity:
Because of this, people during the Ming, when several martial arts systems were supposedly created, attributed everything including poetry to Yue Fei. One good example of this is Yue's famous poem River Awashed in Red (Manjiang Hong), which describes his yearning for feasting on the flesh and drinking of the blood of the barbarians attacking China. The funny thing here is that Yue Fei did not write the poem. It wasn't even written during the Song Dynasty! It was actually written in 1502 by another person (Liu, James T. C. "Yueh Fei (1103-41) and China's Heritage of Loyalty."). Here is another example of 20th century attribution.
#1 – No
I've found that much of the Yue Fei material presented in martial arts books is based on ‘episodes’ from Yue's fictional biography (which is explained further below) or are just plain made up stories. One good example of such misinformation is in a book by Eagle Claw Grandmaster Leung Shum. The book states:
QUOTE
In charge of the Sung resistance was a brilliant general named Ngok Fei, famous for his honesty and patriotism as well as for his superlative kung fu. He trained his soldiers in fighting techniques that he adapted from the Sil Lum monastery kung fu, which he had learned from a monk named Jow Tong. (Leung, Shum and Jeanne Chin. The Secrets of Eagle Claw Kung Fu: Ying Jow Pai, 2001)
Zhou Tong was never a Shaolin monk and he never took Yue to the Shaolin monastery. He was historically hired to teach Yue Fei military archery, which he taught to him (and other children) in the Yue Family village. (Li, Hanhuan. Yue Wumu Nianpu, 1947) For further reasons connected to this, See #3 as well.
#2 - No
My biggest problem with this theory is that Yue Fei’s official and family records do not mention him teaching his soldiers spear techniques, only the brand of archery he learned from Zhou Tong. He is historically known as a powerful archer. Despite this, people argue that Yue Fei had to have taught his men spear techniques because it was apart of contemporary military training. I do not doubt Yue Fei taught his men spear techniques, but don’t think the techniques were any different that that taught by his peers. Most importantly, I think the idea that Yue Fei was known primarily as a spearplayer and that he taught his soldiers "innovative spear techniques" was derived solely from The Story of Yue Fei (Shuo Yue Quan Zhuan), the general's 18th century fictional biography. This image was then carried on by circulation of the novel over the centuries, storytellers, and various boxing manuals like the Preface to Six Harmonies Boxing (Liu He Quan Xu).
The Story of Yue Fei was written during the Qing Dynasty and served partly as a political statement against the Manchu occupation of China. (Degkwitz, Jochen. Yue Fei und sein Mythos, 1983) The Manchus claimed to be descendants of the Jurchen tribes, who Yue Fei struggled against. In the novel, Yue Fei wanders behind a Buddhist temple and wrestles a monstrous snake that magically turns into the spear that he uses for the rest of his youth and military career. He wields this spear in battles against princes, bandits, and barbarians and stories of his spear prowess spread far and wide. Years later, Jin Wushu, the Jurchen commander, attacks Chinese armies with primitive tanks comprised of Chain-linked horses. Yue eventually thinks of a way of defeating the tanks and has one of his sworn-brothers train the troops in the “hooked-spear” (that was made famous by the fictional Water Margin bandit Xu Ning), which he had himself learned from Zhou Tong. The soldiers then use these spears to immobilize the tanks by cutting the legs out from underneath the horses.
The area of the Preface related to this subject is described in the book Orthodox Xingyi Quan by Pei Xirong and Li Ying’ang:
QUOTE
Dai Longbang wrote the 'Preface to Six Harmonies Boxing’ in the 15th reign year of the Qianlong Emperor [1750]. Inside it says, '...when [Yue Fei] was a child, he received special instructions from Zhou Tong. He became extremely skilled in the spear method. He used the spear to create methods for the fist. He established a method called Yi Quan. (Pei, Xirong and Li, Yang’an. Henan Orthodox Xingyi Quan. Trans. Joseph Candrall. Pinole: Smiling Tiger Press, 1994.)
I personally believe the Preface's claim that Zhou Tong taught Yue Fei the spear comes from The Story of Yue Fei as well. In the novel, Zhou is Yue's only military tutor and teaches the boy all of the 18 weapons of war (with focus on the bow and spear), but the general historically had two teachers. Chen Guang was the person who actually taught Yue Fei spearplay.
I hate to regurgitate Jarek Szymanski’s site (as one my friends would say), but he has this to say about Dai Longbang’s book:
QUOTE
Some martial arts historians claim that Cao Jiwu not only did not teach Xinyiquan to Dai Longbang, but was not related to Xinyiquan at all. The common believe that Cao was Dai Longbang’s teacher comes from another believe – that the "Introduction to Xinyiquan Boxing Manual" (Liu He Quan Xu) was written by Dai. However, there is no name below the text and there is no evidence Dai actually wrote it. While most Xingyiquan practitioners consider the "Introduction" to be a document of historical value, more and more researchers doubt its authenticity. Some even claim it is a forgery made out in Shanxi at the end of 19th century.(source)
#3 - Yes
As I previously stated, none of Yue’s official or family biographies mention his military tutors teaching him any form of “boxing”. Someone on Emptyflower stated the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. They went on to mention that famous Ming General Qi Jiguang (戚繼光 1528-1587) actually created his own form of Chinese boxing, but that it is not mentioned in his own biography. However, it is mentioned in his own verified writings (See New Book on Effective Military Techniques 紀效新書).
Like General Qi, Yue Fei has a martial arts document attributed to him, which is known as Yue Wumu’s Ten Essential Xingyi Theses (I have seen it with 9 instead of 10 before). It describes ten fundamental, albeit esoteric points to mastering the art of Xingyi. However, it was not apart of the general’s historical writings collected by his grandson, Yue Ke, during the 13th century. I believe it has been recognized as a modern work just like the Preface mentioned above. Plus, there are several modern martial arts historians that claim there is no traceable historical link between Yue Fei and Xingyi. So, you can disregard this document in regards to arguing against #3. There are no extant martial arts documents actually pinned by Yue Fei.
One must keep in mind that after Yue’s death, he became the epitome of patriotism. One research paper about him says the following concerning his growing popularity:
QUOTE
Intellectual history goes much beyond the elite heritage. The vernacular literature, though authored or edited by elite, reflected much of the intellectual heritage among the mass. As China experienced from the Sung on far more and greater foreign invasions and occupations than before, the popular acclaim of Yüeh Fei in novels and plays echoed precisely the mass response to such historical conditions. It started under the Mongols as an implied protest under alien occupation. It reached its zenith in the Ming period, for more reasons than the ones already given. The vernacular literature played up his morale integrity, simple life, self-denial of personal wealth, discipline of his troops in the same manner, and concern for the welfare of the common people. These were exactly what the masses found to be lacking among many Ming generals and soldiers. In any event, Yüeh Fei became during this period the exclusive subject of a novel and probably a dozen plays, not to mention his past in many other stories. His popularity became so high that he was worshipped as a Taoist deity and the Ming government officially recognized him as such. Interestingly, no Confucianist objected. In contrast, the Manchus made a deliberate compromise. As an alien dynasty, it would not tolerate Yüeh Fei in the official pantheon. But on the other hand, it did not try to change, probably because it could not, the reality of his popularity among the masses. Probably the Manchu conquest made the plays and stories about him more popular than ever, for the Manchus in the beginning claimed to be Jurchen descendants. (Liu, James T. C. "Yueh Fei (1103-41) and China's Heritage of Loyalty." The Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. 31, No. 2 (Feb., 1972), pp. 291-297)
Because of this, people during the Ming, when several martial arts systems were supposedly created, attributed everything including poetry to Yue Fei. One good example of this is Yue's famous poem River Awashed in Red (Manjiang Hong), which describes his yearning for feasting on the flesh and drinking of the blood of the barbarians attacking China. The funny thing here is that Yue Fei did not write the poem. It wasn't even written during the Song Dynasty! It was actually written in 1502 by another person (Liu, James T. C. "Yueh Fei (1103-41) and China's Heritage of Loyalty."). Here is another example of 20th century attribution.
One of the first things I noticed about this is the idea that General Yue personally did x, y, or z. A high ranking officer at any time in Chinese history, is very unlikely to have actually been out on the training grounds instructing or developing martial techniques. It goes against what I know of Chinese culture and it goes against what I know of generals in anytime or place. Generals lead, they do not spend their time actually sweating it out on the training ground figuring out how to improve some infantry technique. That is left to the training corps.
For example when you hear that General X developed such and such a system or technique; what is generally meant in that General X set up a committee or hired some instructor to do it. For example General Qi did not personally create any martial arts techniques or systems and nowhere in his book does he claim to have done so. What I presume happened is he headed a committee which looked into different martial arts systems and then they decided which techniques to bring in and General Qi put his name/seal of approval on all of it.
The second thing I would comment on is the question of did weapons techniques lead to empty hand or vice versa; the answer to that, I am almost sure, is that it is like a chicken and the egg problem. The two arise together.
I will give an example from my own lifetime. For a couple of years in the mid 1980s my brother and I did quite a bit of practical pistol craft. We took the classes, did a couple of small local competitions, read all the magazines. And there was big debate going on then about what stance one should use when firing a pistol. The two main approaches were the Weaver stance and the isosceles stance. A lot of the cops involved in practical pistol craft were also martial artist of one system or another. And what I saw was that unarmed stance part was developed in conjunction with the requirements of using a pistol. The two create each other so to speak.
Turning back to the General Yue questions, the reality is, much of anything that happened before about 1900 is largely unknown and will remain unknown. There just is not much documentary evidence.
Take care and Happy Chinese New Year,
Brian
For example when you hear that General X developed such and such a system or technique; what is generally meant in that General X set up a committee or hired some instructor to do it. For example General Qi did not personally create any martial arts techniques or systems and nowhere in his book does he claim to have done so. What I presume happened is he headed a committee which looked into different martial arts systems and then they decided which techniques to bring in and General Qi put his name/seal of approval on all of it.
The second thing I would comment on is the question of did weapons techniques lead to empty hand or vice versa; the answer to that, I am almost sure, is that it is like a chicken and the egg problem. The two arise together.
I will give an example from my own lifetime. For a couple of years in the mid 1980s my brother and I did quite a bit of practical pistol craft. We took the classes, did a couple of small local competitions, read all the magazines. And there was big debate going on then about what stance one should use when firing a pistol. The two main approaches were the Weaver stance and the isosceles stance. A lot of the cops involved in practical pistol craft were also martial artist of one system or another. And what I saw was that unarmed stance part was developed in conjunction with the requirements of using a pistol. The two create each other so to speak.
Turning back to the General Yue questions, the reality is, much of anything that happened before about 1900 is largely unknown and will remain unknown. There just is not much documentary evidence.
Take care and Happy Chinese New Year,
Brian
QUOTE (Brian L. Kennedy @ Feb 7 2008, 09:18 PM) 
Turning back to the General Yue questions, the reality is, much of anything that happened before about 1900 is largely unknown and will remain unknown. There just is not much documentary evidence.
Take care and Happy Chinese New Year,
Brian
Take care and Happy Chinese New Year,
Brian
Thank you for your insight into the subject.
how about Northern Praying Mantis Style believed to have connections with Yue Fei ? is it also a folklore or fact ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Praying_Mantis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Praying_Mantis
QUOTE (jullian_bei @ Feb 7 2008, 09:36 PM)
how about Northern Praying Mantis Style believed to have connections with Yue Fei ? is it also a folklore or fact ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Praying_Mantis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Praying_Mantis
It's folklore. I'm the person who added that info to the article. Again, this material is based around Yue's fictional biography The Story of Yue Fei. The novel claims:
QUOTE
Zhou Tong had been the tutor of Lin Chong, an instructor of eight thousand Imperial Guards; and he also taught military skills to Lu Junyi, a millionaire of the Prefecture of Da Ming in Henan Province, whose ability in military matters was also considerable. (Qian, Cai. General Yue Fei. Trans. Honorable Sir T.L. Yang, 1995, pg. 39)
Zhou's connection to these bandits is purely fictional (Hsia, C.T. C. T. Hsia on Chinese Literature, 2004, pg. 149). Yue Fei's connection to Mantis Boxing is linked to the above passage. There is supposedly a stone tablet at the Shaolin monastery that commemorates the gathering of 18 kung fu masters at the famed monastery during the early Song Dynasty. Lin Chong and Yang Qing (the adopted son of Lu Junyi) are listed as two of these masters. Lin Chong is listed as a master of "Manderin Duck Leg kicking" skill. This style is more commonly known as "Chuojiao" boxing. One source claims Zhou Tong learned Chuojiao from its creator and taught it to Yue Fei.
It follows the formula A + B = C:
A - Zhou Tong is the master of Lin Chong, who is listed as a master of Chuo Jiao boxing, which was combined with 17 other styles to create Mantis boxing + B - Zhou learned Chuo Jiao from its creator and taught it to Yue Fei = C - Yue Fei's connection to Mantis boxing.
Totally false.
QUOTE (ghostexorcist @ Feb 1 2008, 06:48 AM)
Years later, Jin Wushu, the Jurchen commander, attacks Chinese armies with primitive tanks comprised of Chain-linked horses. Yue eventually thinks of a way of defeating the tanks and has one of his sworn-brothers train the troops in the “hooked-spear” (that was made famous by the fictional Water Margin bandit Xu Ning), which he had himself learned from Zhou Tong. The soldiers then use these spears to immobilize the tanks by cutting the legs out from underneath the horses.
This is what I am referring too:
The Story of Yue Fei
Chapter 56: “The Hooked Spears inflicted a major defeat on the Chain of Armored Horses”
QUOTE
Three thousand men charged forth from the middle. Each horse was covered with armour made of camel hide. Their heads where linked together with iron hooks and iron rings. Each line consisted of thirty horses. Each rider wore an amour of oxhide, fortified with a mask also made of oxhide showing only his eyes. There was a line of archers, backed by one line of lances, with a hundred lines in all…The way to defeat it is called the Hooked Spears, devised by Xu Ning, and it is still preserved to-day…When he [Yue] returned to his own tent he commanded Meng Bangjie and Zhang Xian to take three thousand troops each and practice the Hooked spears. (pg. 658)
...
The barbarian soldiers blew their Tatar pipes and beat the camel hide drums. At the firing of a cannon shot, the three thousand horses chained together rolled forward…Meng and Zhang went ahead of their men and spread out the hooked spears. In quick succession they struck down several horses with the hooks, thereby immobilizing the other horses, which trampled each other. (pg. 661)
...
The barbarian soldiers blew their Tatar pipes and beat the camel hide drums. At the firing of a cannon shot, the three thousand horses chained together rolled forward…Meng and Zhang went ahead of their men and spread out the hooked spears. In quick succession they struck down several horses with the hooks, thereby immobilizing the other horses, which trampled each other. (pg. 661)
Now here is what appeared in the Water Margin. Keep in mind this novel was published at least 100 years before Yue’s fictional bio:
Outlaws of the Marsh (Water Margin)
Chapter 57: “Xu Ning teaches how to use the barbed lance” (the similarity in chapter number is just a coincidence)
QUOTE
In Fraternity Hall, the chiedftains requested Xu Ning to demonstrate the barbed lance…After selecting his trainees, he went outside the Hall, pickued up a barbed lance and showed how it was done (pg. 1198) …He also showed infrantry how to hide in brush and grass and snag the legs of horses…In less than half a month, he had taught five to seven hundred men. (pg. 1199)
…
Huyan Zhuo…ordered that the horses of his armored cavalry be linked together (pg. 1201)…Huyan was furious. He advanced north with his army. Song Jiang’s men plunged into the reeds. Huyan came tearing after them with a large contingent of linked cavalry. The armored steeds, galloping in tandem, could not be checked. They crashed in among the dry reeds, tall grass and tangled thickets. A shrill whistle rent the air, and barded lances on both ends of the linked lines snagged the horses’ legs and brought them tumbling to the ground. (pg.1202)
…
Huyan Zhuo…ordered that the horses of his armored cavalry be linked together (pg. 1201)…Huyan was furious. He advanced north with his army. Song Jiang’s men plunged into the reeds. Huyan came tearing after them with a large contingent of linked cavalry. The armored steeds, galloping in tandem, could not be checked. They crashed in among the dry reeds, tall grass and tangled thickets. A shrill whistle rent the air, and barded lances on both ends of the linked lines snagged the horses’ legs and brought them tumbling to the ground. (pg.1202)
Here is a neat little Ming Dynasty illustration of the barbed lance battle:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.