Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:04:48.158Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Chinese Middle Ages in Communist Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Extract

Historical writing in China today, whether by scholars who are members of the Communist Party, or academic writers who are not themselves Communists, has paid scant attention to the long period of time which may be called the Chinese Middle Ages, roughly from A.D. 316, the date of the partition of north and south following the nomad invasions, down to the end of the Sung Dynasty in A.D. 1278. This period of nearly a thousand years is considered by the Communist philosophy of history to be “feudal” and no real change in the social structure is supposed to have taken place under the long succession of “feudal” dynasties. Compared with the important transformation of ancient “slave society” to serf-owning feudalism, which is considered to have been completed somewhat before the Han Dynasty came to power, this long interim of feudalism drags on until, with the Ming, the first signs of nascent capitalism are to be detected, ushering in the still more dramatic events of imperialist aggression, revolution and the final triumph of the Communist Party. The scheme is not Chinese; it was borrowed, or adopted, from the Russians, who in turn seem to have based it upon a reference of Marx, contained in one of his letters, to the view that the general progression from primitive society to slave-owning monarchies, and then to feudalism, appeared to be a law of history. It may well be that this scheme is roughly applicable to several Western societies, but it is very hard to thrust Chinese history onto this procrustean bed—and still make sense of it.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wei-ch'en, Chu, “The Special Contradictions of Society in the Western Wei and Northern Chou Dynasties at the Time when the Fu Ping System was Established, and the Solution (of these Contradictions),” Li-shih Yen-chiu (Historical Research), No. 6, 1963, pp. 151172Google Scholar; Hui-chung, T'an, “The Real Meaning of the Chun T'ien (Equal Fields) System in the Northern Wei Dynasty,” Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 5, 1963, pp. 135146Google Scholar.

2 Po-ch'in, Chiang, “Research into the ‘Slave’ Army Uprisings at the End of the Sui Dynasty,” Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 3, 1963, pp. 151164Google Scholar.

3 Ta-jen, Sun, “Analysis of the Economic Content of Leases during the T'ang and Five Dynasties Periods,” Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 6, 1962, pp. 97107Google Scholar.

4 Hsing, T'ang, “A Critical Review of Wu Feng's History of the Sui, T'ang and Five Dynasties,” Li-shih Yen-chiu, 09 1958, pp. 4755Google Scholar.

5 Jen-min Jih-pao (People's Daily), July 8, 1962.

6 The original of Dr. Van Gulik's “Judge Dee.”

7 Yi-sheng, Wang, “Historical Significance of the Political Reforms of the Two Wangs and the Eight Ssu-ma,” Li-shih Yen-chiu, No. 3, 1963, pp. 105130Google Scholar.

8 Fang-chung, Wang, “Private Handicraft Industry of the Sung Dynasty,” Li-Shih Yen-chiu, 02 1959, pp. 3957Google Scholar; Ch'ang-chi, K'o, “Preliminary Study of Wage Labour in the Sung Dynasty,” Li-Shih Yen-chiu, 02 1957, pp. 2348Google Scholar.